JEWISH  WORTHIES  VOL.  2. 

^-*- 


RASH 

BY  MAURICE  LIB 


TRANSLATED  E 


'  ! 


I 


ADELE  SZOLD 


i  i 


RASHI 


As  for  the  wise,  their  body  alone  perishes  in  this  world." 

(Rashi,  on  Psalm  xlix.  11.) 


THE  RASHI  COUNTRY 


I 


BY 

MAURICE    LIBER 

TRANSLATED   FROM   THE   FRENCH   BY 

ADELE    SZOLD 


Published  for  the 

jfevnth  Historical  Society  of  Sngland 

<By  MACMILLAN  fef  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON 

1906 


NOTE 

This  volume  on  Rashi  forms  the  second 
of  a  series  of  books  dealing  with  "Jewish 
Worthies."  The  volume  is  also  published 
in  Philadelphia  by  the  Jewish  Publication 
Society  of  America. 


TO    THE    MEMORY    OF 

ZADOC-KAHN 
GRAND-RABBIN    OF    FRANCE 


PREFACE 

Some  months  ago  the  Jewish  world  celebrated  the 
eight  hundredth  anniversary  of  the  death  of  Rashi,  who 
died  at  Troyes  in  1105.  On  that  occasion  those  whose 
knowledge  authorizes  them  to  speak  gave  eloquent  ac- 
counts of  his  life  and  work.  Science  and  devotion 
availed  themselves  of  every  possible  medium — lectures 
and  books,  journals  and  reviews — to  set  forth  all  we 
owe  to  the  illustrious  Rabbi.  The  writer  ventures  to 
express  the  hope  that  in  the  present  volume  he  has  made 
at  least  a  slight  contribution  toward  discharging  the 
common  debt  of  the  Jewish  nation — that  it  is  not  utterly 
unworthy  of  him  whose  name  it  bears. 

This  volume,  however,  is  not  a  product  of  circum- 
stances; it  was  not  written  on  the  occasion  of  the  cen- 
tenary celebration.  It  was  designed  to  form  one  of  the 
series  of  the  biographies  of  Jewish  Worthies  planned  by 
the  JEWISH  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY  OF  AMERICA,  the 
first  issue  of  which  was  devoted  to  Maimonides.  The 
biography  of  Rashi  is  the  second  of  the  series.  It  is 
not  for  the  author  to  endorse  the  order  adopted,  but  he 
hazards  the  opinion  that  the  readers  will  find  the  por- 
trait of  Rashi  no  unfitting  companion-piece  even  to  that 
of  the  author  of  the  Moreh. 

Jewish  history  may  include  minds  more  brilliant  and 
works  more  original  than  Rashi's.  But  it  is  incon- 
testable that  he  is  one  of  those  historical  personages 


4  PEEFACE 

who  afford  a  double  interest;  his  own  personality  is 
striking  and  at  the  same  time  he  is  the  representative 
of  a  civilization  and  of  a  period.  He  has  this  double 
interest  for  us  to  an  eminent  degree.  His  physiognomy 
has  well-marked,  individual  features,  and  yet  he  is  the 
best  exponent  of  French  Judaism  in  the  middle  ages. 
He  is  somebody,  and  he  represents  something.  Through 
this  double  claim,  he  forms  an  integral  part  of  Jewish 
history  and  literature.  There  are  great  men  who  despite 
their  distinguished  attributes  stand  apart  from  the  gen- 
eral intellectual  movements.  They  can  be  estimated 
without  reference  to  an  historical  background.  Eashi 
forms,  so  to  say,  an  organic  part  of  Jewish  history.  A 
whole  department  of  Jewish  literature  would  be  enig- 
matical without  him.  Like  a  star  which  leaves  a  track 
of  light  in  its  passage  across  the  skies,  Eashi  aroused 
the  enthusiasm  of  his  contemporaries,  but  no  less  was 
he  admired  and  venerated  by  posterity,  and  to-day,  after 
the  lapse  of  eight  centuries,  he  is,  as  the  poet  says,  "  still 
young  in  glory  and  immortality." 

His  name  is  most  prominently  connected  with  Eab- 
binical  literature.  Whether  large  questions  are  dealt 
with,  or  the  minutest  details  are  considered,  it  is  always 
Eashi  who  is  referred  to — he  has  a  share  in  all  its 
destinies,  and  he  seems  inseparable  from  it  forever. 

It  is  this  circumstance  that  makes  the  writing  of  his 
biography  as  awkward  a  task  for  the  writer  as  reading 
it  may  be  for  the  public.  To  write  it  one  must  be  a 
scholar,  to  read  it  a  specialist.  To  know  Eashi  well  is  as 
difficult  as  it  is  necessary.  Singularly  enough,  popular 
as  he  was,  he  was  essentially  a  Talmudist,  and  at  no  time 
have  connoisseurs  of  the  Talmud  formed  a  majority. 


PREFACE  5 

This  is  the  reason  why  historians  like  Graetz,  though 
they  dilate  upon  the  unparalleled  qualities  of  Rashi's 
genius,  can  devote  only  a  disproportionately  small  num- 
ber of  pages  to  him  and  his  works. 

Though  the  writer  has  throughout  been  aware  of  the 
difficulties  inherent  in  his  task,  yet  he  is  also  conscious 
that  he  has  sometimes  succeeded  in  removing  them  only 
by  eluding  them.  In  parts,  when  the  matter  to  be 
treated  was  unyielding,  it  became  necessary  to  dwell  on 
side  issues,  or  fill  up  gaps  and  replace  obscurities  by 
legends  and  hypotheses.  The  object  in  view  being  a 
book  popular  in  character  and  accessible  to  all,  technical 
discussions  had  to  be  eschewed.  Many  knotty  points 
had  to  be  brushed  aside  lightly,  and  the  most  debatable 
points  passed  over  in  silence.  These  are  the  sacrifices 
to  which  one  must  resign  himself,  though  it  requires 
self-restraint  to  do  it  consistently.  The  reader  may, 
therefore,  not  expect  to  find  new  data  in  these  pages, 
new  facts  and  texts  not  published  before.  If  the  book 
has  any  merit,  it  is  that  it  presents  the  actual  state  of 
knowledge  on  the  subject,  and  the  author  anticipates  the 
charge  of  plagiarism  by  disclaiming  any  intention  of 
producing  an  original  work.  Recondite  sources  have 
not  always  been  referred  to,  in  order  not  to  overload  a 
text  which  at  best  is  apt  to  tax  the  reader's  powers  of 
attention.  Such  references  and  special  remarks  as  were 
deemed  necessary  have  been  incorporated  either  in 
Notes  placed  at  the  end  of  the  book,  or  in  an  Appendix 
containing  a  bibliography.  There  the  works  are  men- 
tioned to  which  the  author  is  chiefly  indebted,  and  which 
his  readers  may  profitably  consult  if  they  desire  to 
pursue  the  subject  further. 


6  PEEFACE 

The  author  desires  to  express  his  appreciation  of  the 
work  of  the  translator,  whose  collaboration  was  all  the 
more  valuable  as  the  revision  of  the  book  had  to  be 
made,  after  an  interval  of  almost  two  years,  under  most 
unfavorable  conditions,  aggravated  by  the  distance  be- 
tween the  writer  and  the  place  of  publication.  The 
readers  will  themselves  judge  of  the  skill  with  which 
the  translator  has  acquitted  herself  of  her  task,  and 
the  author  gladly  leaves  to  her  the  honor  and  the 
responsibility  for  the  translation. 

But  how  can  I  express  all  I  owe  to  M.  Israel  Levi,  my 
honored  master?  Without  him  this  work  would  never 
have  been  begun,  without  him  I  should  never  have  dared 
carry  it  to  completion.  I  have  contracted  a  debt  toward 
him  which  grows  from  day  to  day,  and  I  discharge  but 
the  smallest  portion  of  it  by  dedicating  this  volume  to 
the  memory  of  his  never-to-be-forgotten  father-in-law, 
the  Grand-Eabbin  Zadoc-Kahn.  M.  Zadoc-Kahn  made 
a  name  for  himself  in  Jewish  letters  by  his  Etudes  sur  le 
livre  de  Joseph  le  Zelateur,  dealing  with  one  of  the 
most  curious  domains  of  that  literature  in  which  Eashi 
was  the  foremost  representative.  One  of  his  last  public 
acts  was  the  appeal  which  he  issued  on  the  occasion  of 
the  Eashi  centenary.  It  is  not  a  slight  satisfaction  to 
me  to  know  that  these  pages  passed  under  his  eyes  in 

manuscript. 

M.  LIBEK 

CHILONS-SUB-MABNE,  March,  1906 


CONTENTS 


PEEFACE 
(page  3) 

INTRODUCTION 
(page  13) 

BOOK  I— EASHI  THE  MAN- 
CHAPTER  I 

THE  JEWS  OF  FRANCE  ix  THE  ELEVENTH  CEUTTJBY 
Dispersion  of  the  Jews — Their  Appearance  in  Gaul. 

I.  Material    and    Political    Condition    of    the    Jews    of 
France    in    the    Eleventh    Century — Their    Occupations — 
Their  Relations  with  the  Christians — General  Instruction 
and  Religious  Life — Limitations  of  their  Literature. 

II.  Rabbinical     Culture — Part     played     by     Italy — The 
Kalonymides — The  Schools  of  Lorraine — Rabbenu  Gershom, 
Meor  ha-Golah — His  Work  and   Influence — Contemporaries 
and  Disciples  of  Gershom — Movement  reaches  its  Climax 
with  Rashi page  17 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  OF  RASHI 
Difficulties    of    Writing    a  Biography    of    Rashi — History 
and  Legend. 

I.  The  Periods  into  which  Rashi's  Life  may  be  divided 
— His  Names — Rashi  and  Yarhi — Troyes  in  the  Middle  of 
the  Eleventh  Century — The  Fairs  of  Champagne — The  Com- 
munity of  Troyes — The  Family  of  Rashi  and  its  Fame  in 
Legend — Childhood — Education     of    Children     among    the 
Jews   of  France   in  the  Middle   Ages — Higher    Instruction 
among  the  Jews  and  the  Christians — Alleged  Journeys  and 
Adventures  of  Rashi. 

II.  Rashi  in  Lorraine — Position  of  the  Jews  in  Lorraine 
— Their   Relations   with   the  Jews    of   France — Schools   of 
Worms  and  Mayence — Masters  of  Rashi  and  their  Influence 
upon  him — His  Colleagues  and  Correspondents page  31 


8  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  III 
RASHI  AT  TROTES — LAST  YEAKS 

Rashi  settles  in  his  Birthplace. 

I.  New  Centre  of  Studies — Rashi  and  the  City  of  Troyes 
— Spiritual  Activity  and  Authority  of  Rashi — Rashi  founds 
a  School — His  Authority  and  Teachings — His  Relations 
with  his  Teachers — He  writes  his  Commentaries — Mar- 
riage of  his  Three  Daughters — His  Sons-in-law  and  Grand- 
children— A  Jewish  Marriage  in  the  Middle  Ages — The 
Domestic  Virtues — The  Education  and  Position  of  Woman 
among  the  Jews. 

II.  The  Crusades — What  they  actually  were — Massa- 
cres in  the  Jewries  along  the  Moselle  and  the  Rhine — 
Rashi  and  the  Apostates — Rashi  and  Godfrey  of  Bouillon — 
Consequences  of  the  Crusades — End  of  Rashi's  Life — 
Legends  connected  with  his  Death — Rashi's  Death  at 
Troyes page  53 

CHAPTER  IV 

CHABACTEB  AND  LEARNING  OF  RASHI 
Rashi's  Spiritual  Physiognomy — Sources. 

I.  The  Man  and   his   Intellect — Depth   and   Naivete"  of 
his   Faith — His  Goodness,  Extreme  Modesty,  and  Love  of 
Truth — Attitude    in  Regard  to    his    Masters — His    Corre- 
spondents and  his  Pupils. 

II.  The  Scholar — Alleged  Universality  of  his  Knowledge 
— Wherein  his  Knowledge  was  limited,  and  wherein  ex- 
tended— Rashi's  Library — The  Authors  he  cites,  and  the 
Authorities  to  whom  he  appeals — Lacunae  in  his  Knowl- 
edge— Sureness  of  his  Knowledge page  73 

BOOK  II— THE  WOEK  OP  EASHI 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  COMMENTARIES — GENERAL  CHARACTERISTICS 
Composition  of  the  Commentaries  on  the  Bible  and  the 
Talmud — Their  Character  and  their  Limitations — 
The  Explanations — Clearness,  Accuracy,  Brevity — The 
French  Glosses,  or  Laazim — Their  Function — Their 
Philologic  Importance — The  Works  treating  of 
them page  89 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTARIES 

Rashi,  the  Commentator  par  excellence  of  the  Bible — His 
Authorities — The  Targumim,  the  Massorah — The  Tal- 
mud and  the  Midrash — Exegesis  before  Rashi — The 
Peshat  and  the  Derash  (Literary  Method  and  Free 
Method) — The  Study  of  the  Bible  among  the  Christians 
and  among  the  Jews — The  Extent  to  which  Rashi  used 
the  Two  Methods — Various  Examples — Anti-Christian 
Polemics — Causes  of  the  Importance  attached  to  Derash 
— Rashi  and  Samuel  ben  Mei'r — Rashi's  Grammar — 
Rashi  and  the  Spaniards — His  Knowledge  of  Hebrew — 
Rashi  compared  with  Modern  Exegetes  and  with 
Abraham  Ibn  Ezra — Homely  Character  of  the  Biblical 
Commentaries — Their  Popularity page  104 

CHAPTER  VII 
THE  TALMXTDIC  COMMENTABEES 

Differences  between  the  Biblical  and  the  Talmudic  Com- 
mentaries— Composition — Wherein  Rashi  imitates  and 
wherein  he  is  Original — His  Predecessors — His  Method 
— Establishment  of  the  Text — The  Commentary  a 
Grammatical  Guide — Accuracy  and  Soundness  of  his 
Explanations — Examples — Rashi  as  an  Historian — 
Rashi  and  the  Halakah — Rashi  and  the  Haggadah — 
Citations — Value  and  Fortune  of  the  Talmudic  Commen- 
taries    page  135 

CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  RESPONSA 

Rashi  decides  Questions  of  Law — Rabbinical  Responsa  as  a 
Form  of  Literature — Historic  Interest  attaching  to 
those  of  Rashi — Relations  between  Jews  and  Christians 
— Rashi  and  the  Apostates — He  preaches  Concord  in 
Families  and  Communities — Rashi's  Character  as  mani- 
fested in  his  Responsa — The  Naivet6,  Strength,  and 
Tolerance  of  his  Faith page  159 

CHAPTER  IX 

WOBKS  COMPOSED  TJNDEB  THE  INFLUENCE  OF  RASHI 

Character  of  these  Works — The  Sefer  JidrPardes  and  the 

Sefer  Jia-Orah — The  Mdhzor  Vitry — The  Elements  and 

the   Redactors    of   these    Works — Their    Interest    and 

their  Value page  169 


10  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  X 

POETRY  ATTRIBUTED  TO  RASHI 

Liturgical  Poetry  at  the  Time  of  Rashi — The  Selihot  attrib- 
uted to  Rashi — Their  Technique — Sentiments  therein 
expressed — Quotations — Their  Poetic  Value . . .  page  173 

BOOK  III— THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI 

CHAPTER  XI 

FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  RASHI  TO  THE  EXPULSION  OF  THE  JEWS 

FROM  FRANCE 
Rashi's  Influence  upon  Biblical  and  Talmudic  Literature. 

I.  Rashi  and  the  Talmudic  Movement   in  France — His 
Principal   Disciples — Shemaiah — His   Two    Sons-in-law,   Ju- 
dah  ben  Nathan  and  MeTr  ben  Samuel — The  School  of  Ra- 
meru — The  Four  Sons  of  MeTr — Samuel  ben  Mei'r,  his  Intel- 
lect and  his  Work — Jacob  Tarn,  his  Life  and  Influence — 
His   Disciples    and   Works — The   Tossafot — Method   of  the 
Tossafists  and  their  Relation  to  Rashi — The  School  of  Dam- 
pierre — Isaac  ben  Samuel  the  Elder  and  his  Disciples — The 
School  of  Paris — Judah  Sir  Leon;  his  Chief  Pupils — Jehiel 
of  Meaux  and  his  French  and  German  Disciples — Redaction 
of  the  Tossafot. 

II.  Rashi   and   the   Biblical   Movement   in   France — The 
Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch  by  Samuel  ben  Meir — His 
Disciples — Joseph     Kara    and     Josenh     Bekor-Shor — Their 
Rational    Exegesis — Decadence    of    Biblical   Exesresis — The 
Tossafot  on  the  Pentateuch;  Chief  Collections;  their  Char- 
acter— Rashi  and  Christian  Exegesis — Nicholas  de  Lyra  and 
Luther — Decadence  of  French  Judaism  from  the  Expulsion 
of  1181  to  that  of  1396. 

III.  Rashi's  Influence  outside  of  France — Rashi  in  the 
Orient;  in  the  Provence — Evidences  of  his  Reputation;   in 
Italy;   in  Spain — How  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra  judged  Rashi — 
David      Kimhi — Kabbalistic     Exegesis — Nahmanides — Solo- 
mon ben  Adfet,  Nissim  Gerundi,  and  Asher  ben  Jehiel .... 
page  183 

CHAPTER  XII 
FROM  THE  EXPULSION  OF  THE  JEWS  FROM  FRANCE  TO  THE 

PRESENT  TIME 

Rashi  in  Foreign  Countries — Rashi's  Influence  on  the  Ital- 
ians; on  the  Last  Spanish  Talmudists — Elijah  Mizrahi 


CONTENTS  11 

f 

— Rashi's  Popularity — His  Descendants — The  Family  of 
Luria — The  Authors  of  Super-Commentaries  and  of  Hid- 
dushim — Rashi  and  Printing — The  Renaissance — Rashi 
and  the  Hebrew  Scholars  among  the  Christians  of  the 
Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  Centuries — Breithaupt — 
Rashi  in  the  Eighteenth  Century — Moses  Mendelssohn 
and  the  Biurists — Rashi  in  the  Nineteenth  Century — 
The  Eighth  Centenary  of  his  Death page  210 

CONCLUSION 
(page  222) 

APPENDIX  I 

THE  FAMILY  OF  RASHI 
(page  227) 

APPENDIX  II 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 
(page  231) 

NOTES 
(page  241) 

INDEX 
(page  261) 


INTRODUCTION 

A  people  honors  itself  in  honoring  the  great  men  who 
have  interpreted  its  thought,  who  are  the  guardians  of 
its  genius.  It  thus  renders  merited  homage  and  pays 
just  tribute  to  those  who  have  increased  the  treasures  of 
its  civilization  and  added  a  new  feature  to  its  moral 
physiognomy;  it  establishes  the  union  of  ideas  that 
assures  the  conservation  of  the  national  genius,  and 
maintains  and  perpetuates  the  consciousness  of  the 
nation.  Finally,  it  manifests  consciousness  of  its  future 
in  taking  cognizance  of  its  past,  and  in  turning  over  the 
leaves  of  its  archives,  it  defines  its  part  and  mission  in 
history.  The  study  of  men  and  facts  in  the  past  permits 
of  a  sounder  appreciation  of  recent  efforts,  of  present 
tendencies;  for  "humanity  is  always  composed  of  more 
dead  than  living,"  and  usually  "  the  past  is  what  is  most 
vital  in  the  present." 

No  people  has  greater  need  than  the  Jews  to  steep 
itself  again  in  the  sources  of  its  existence,  and  no  period 
more  than  the  present  imposes  upon  it  the  duty  of  bring- 
ing its  past  back  to  life.  Scattered  over  the  face  of  the 
globe,  no  longer  constituting  a  body  politic,  the  Jewish 
people  by  cultivating  its  intellectual  patrimony  creates 
for  itself  an  ideal  fatherland;  and  mingled,  as  it  is, 
with  its  neighbors,  threatened  by  absorption  into  sur- 
rounding nations,  it  recovers  a  sort  of  individuality  by 
the  reverence  it  pays  to  men  that  have  given  best 
expression  to  its  peculiar  genius. 

2 


14  RASHI 

But  the  Jewish  people,  its  national  life  crushed  out 
of  it,  though  deprived  of  all  political  ambitions,  has 
yet  regained  a  certain  national  solidarity  through  com- 
munity of  faith  and  ideals;  and  it  has  maintained  the 
cohesion  of  its  framework  hy  the  wholly  spiritual  bonds 
of  teaching  and  charity.  This  is  the  picture  it  presents 
throughout  the  middle  ages,  during  the  period  which, 
for  Christianity,  marked  an  eclipse  of  the  intellect  and, 
as  it  were,  an  enfeeblement  of  the  reason  to  such  a 
degree  that  the  term  middle  ages  becomes  synonymous 
with  intellectual  decadence.  "  But,"  said  the  historian 
Graetz,  "  while  the  sword  was  ravaging  the  outer  world, 
and  the  people  devoted  themselves  to  murderous  strife, 
the  house  of  Jacob  cared  only  that  the  light  of  the  mind 
burn  on  steadily  and  that  the  shadows  of  darkness  be 
dissipated.  If  a  religion  may  be  judged  by  its  principal 
representatives,  the  palm  must  be  awarded  to  Judaism  in 
the  tenth  to  the  thirteenth  century."  Its  scholars, 
therefore,  its  philosophers,  and  its  poets  render  Judaism 
illustrious,  and  by  their  works  and  their  renown  shed  a 
radiant  light  upon  its  history. 

Maimonides  is  one  of  those  eminent  spirits  in  whom 
was  reflected  the  genius  of  the  Jewish  people  and  who 
have  in  turn  contributed  to  the  development  of  its 
genius.1  Maimonides,  however,  was  also  more  than  this ; 
perhaps  he  presents  as  much  of  interest  from  the  point 
of  view  of  Arabic  as  of  Jewish  culture;  and  expressing 
more  than  the  Jewish  ideal,  he  does  not  belong  to  the 
Jews  entirely.  Of  Rashi,  on  the  contrary,  one  may  say 
that  he  is  a  Jew  to  the  exclusion  of  everything  else. 
He  is  no  more  than  a  Jew,  no  other  than  a  Jew. 


BOOK  I 
RASHI   THE   MAN 


BOOK  I 

EASHI  THE  MAN 


CHAPTEE  I 

THE  JEWS  OF  FBANCE  IN  THE 
ELEVENTH  CENTURY 

Great  men — and  Bashi,  as  we  shall  see,  may  be  counted 
among  their  number — arrive  at  opportune  times. 
Sometimes  we  congratulate  them  for  having  disap- 
peared from  history  in  good  season;  it  would  be  just 
as  reasonable,  or,  rather,  just  as  unreasonable,  to  be 
grateful  to  them  for  having  come  at  exactly  the  right 
juncture  of  affairs.  The  great  man,  in  fact,  is  the  man 
of  the  moment ;  he  comes  neither  too  soon,  which  spares 
him  from  fumbling  over  beginnings  and  so  clogging  his 
own  footsteps,  nor  too  late,  which  prevents  him  from 
imitating  a  model  and  so  impeding  the  development  of 
his  personality.  He  is  neither  a  precursor  nor  an 
epigone,  neither  a  forerunner  nor  a  late-comer.  He 
neither  breaks  the  ground  nor  gleans  the  harvest :  he  is 
the  sower  who  casts  the  seed  upon  a  field  ready  to  receive 
it  and  make  it  grow. 

It  is,  therefore,  of  some  avail  for  us  to  devote  several 
pages  to  the  history  of  the  Jews  of  Northern  France  in 
the  eleventh  century,  especially  in  regard  to  their  intel- 


18  RASHI 

lectual  state  and  more  especially  in  regard  to  their  rab- 
binical culture.  If  another  reason  were  needed  to  justi- 
fy this  preamble,  I  might  invoke  a  principle  long  ago 
formulated  and  put  to  the  test  by  criticism,  namely,  that 
environment  is  an  essential  factor  in  the  make-up  of  a 
writer,  and  an  intellectual  work  is  always  determined, 
conditioned  by  existing  circumstances.  The  principle 
applies  to  Rashi,  of  whom  one  may  say,  of  whom  in  fact 
Zunz  has  said,  he  is  the  representative  par  excellence  of 
his  time  and  of  his  circle. 


In  the  great  migratory  movement  beginning  at  the 
dawn  of  the  Christian  era,  which  scattered  the  Jews 
to  the  four  corners  of  the  globe,  and  which  was  accen- 
tuated and  precipitated  by  the  misfortunes  that  broke 
over  the  population  of  Palestine,  France,  or,  more  ex- 
actly, Gaul,  was  colonized  by  numbers  of  Jews.  If  we 
believe  in  the  right  of  the  first  occupant,  we  ought  to 
consider  the  French  Jews  more  French  than  many 
Frenchmen.  Conversions  must  at  first  have  been  num- 
erous, and  the  number  of  apostates  kept  pace  with  the 
progress  of  Christianity. 

In  the  south  of  France,  there  were  Jewish  communi- 
ties before  the  fifth  century ;  in  Burgundy  and  Touraine, 
in  the  first  half  of  the  sixth  century ;  and  in  Austrasia, 
at  the  end  of  the  same  century.  From  the  Provence, 
they  ascended  the  Rhone  and  the  Saone.  Others  reached 
Guienne  and  Anjou.* 

Although  disturbed  at  times  by  the  canons  of  various 
distrustful  Church  councils,  or  by  the  sermons  of  a  few 


THE  JEWS  OF  FKANCE  19 

vehement  bishops,  the  Jews  on  the  whole  led  a  peaceful, 
though  not  a  very  prosperous,  existence,  which  has  left 
scarcely  any  traces  in  history  and  literature.  Aside  from 
a  few  unimportant  names  and  facts,  these  centuries  mark 
a  gap  in  the  history  of  the  Jews  of  France,  as  in  that  of 
their  Christian  neighbors;  and  literature,  as  it  always 
does,  followed  the  political  and  economic  destinies  of  the 
nation.  From  the  fifth  to  the  tenth  century,  letters  fell 
into  utter  decay,  despite  the  momentary  stimulus  given 
by  Charlemagne.  The  human  intellect,  to  borrow  from 
Guizot,  had  reached  the  nadir  of  its  course.  This  epoch, 
however,  was  not  entirely  lost  to  civilization.  The  Jews 
applied  themselves  to  studies,  the  taste  for  which  devel- 
oped more  and  more  strongly.  If  as  yet  they  could  not 
fly  with  their  own  wings,  they  remained  in  relation  with 
the  centres  of  rabbinical  life,  the  academies  in  Baby- 
lonia, exchanging  the  products  of  the  mind  at  the  same 
time  that  they  bartered  merchandise.  This  slow  process 
of  incubation  was  perforce  fruitful  of  results. 


It  was  in  the  tenth  century,  when  the  political  and 
social  troubles  that  had  agitated  Europe  since  the  fall  of 
the  Eoman  Empire  were  calmed,  that  the  Jews  came 
forth  from  their  semi-obscurity,  either  because  their 
numbers  had  increased,  or  because  their  position  had  be- 
come more  stable,  or  because  they  were  ready,  after 
mature  preparation,  to  play  their  part  in  the  intellectual 
world. 

At  this  time,  the  Jews  of  Northern  France  nearly 
without  exception  enjoyed  happy  conditions  of  existence. 


20  EASHI 

From  their  literature,  rather  scholarly  than  popular,  we 
learn  chiefly  of  their  schools  and  their  rabbis;  yet  we 
also  learn  from  it  that  their  employments  were  the  same 
as  those  of  the  other  inhabitants  of  the  country.  They 
were  engaged  in  trade,  many  attaining  wealth;  and  a 
number  devoted  themselves  to  agriculture.  They  pos- 
sessed fields  and  vineyards,  for  neither  the  ownership 
of  land  nor  residence  in  the  country  was  forbidden  them ; 
and  they  were  also  employed  in  cattle  raising.  Often 
they  took  Christians  into  their  service. 

But  the  Jews,  although  they  attached  themselves  to 
the  soil  and  tried  to  take  root  there,  were  essentially  an 
urban  population.  They  owned  real  estate  and  devoted 
themselves  to  all  sorts  of  industries.  They  were  allowed  to 
be  workmen  and  to  practice  every  handicraft,  inasmuch 
as  the  guilds,  those  associations,  partly  religious  in  char- 
acter, which  excluded  the  Jews  from  their  membership 
rolls,  did  not  begin  to  be  established  until  the  twelfth 
century.  Sometimes  a  Jew  was  entrusted  with  a  public 
office,  as  a  rule  that  of  collector  of  taxes.  Not  until 
later,  about  the  twelfth  century,  when  forced  by  men  and 
circumstances,  did  the  Jews  make  a  specialty  of  money- 
lending. 

The  strength  of  the  Jews  resided  in  the  fact  that  they 
were  organized  in  communities,  which  were  marked  by 
intense  solidarity,  and  in  which  harmony  and  tran- 
quillity were  assured  by  the  rabbinical  institutions. 
Failure  to  respect  these  institutions  was  punished  by 
excommunication — a  severe  penalty,  for  the  excommuni- 
cated man  encountered  the  hate  of  his  co-religionists  and 
was  driven  to  baptism.* 


THE  JEWS  OP  FEANCE  21 

At  the  head  of  the  communities  were  provosts 
(praepositi) ,  charged  with  surveillance  over  their  in- 
terests, and  doubtless  their  representatives  before  the 
civil  authority.  Many  Jews  were  highly  esteemed  by 
the  kings  or  seigneurs,  holding  positions  of  honor  and 
bearing  honorific  titles;  but  in  general  the  Jews  of 
France,  unlike  those  of  Spain,  were  not  permitted  to  take 
part  in  the  government,  or  even  have  a  share  in  the  po- 
litical life  of  the  nation.  They  contented  themselves  with 
the  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  their  labor  and  the  peace- 
ful practice  of  their  religion.  They  were  the  less  dis- 
turbed because  they  lived  under  a  special  regime.  Being 
neither  French  nor  Christian,  they  were  therefore  not 
citizens ;  they  formed  a  state  within  the  state,  or  rather  a 
colony  within  the  state,  and,  being  neither  nobles  nor 
serfs,  they  did  not  have  to  render  military  service.  They 
administered  their  internal  affairs,  and  in  general  were 
not  amenable  to  civil  or  ecclesiastical  legislation.  For 
the  solution  of  their  legal  difficulties  they  applied  to 
the  rabbinical  tribunals.  In  all  other  respects  they 
were  dependent  upon  the  lord  of  the  lands  upon  which 
they  established  themselves,  provided  they  were  not  under 
the  tutelle  et  mainbournie  of  the  king.  In  either  case 
they  had  to  pay  taxes  and  constitute  themselves  a  con- 
stantly flowing  source  of  revenues  for  their  protectors. 

The  Jews  lived  on  a  basis  of  good  understanding  with 
their  neighbors,  and  came  into  frequent  intercourse  with 
them.  Even  the  clergy  maintained  relations  with  Jew- 
ish scholars.  It  was  the  incessant  efforts  of  the  higher 
ecclesiastics  and  of  the  papacy  that  little  by  little  created 
animosity  against  the  Jews,  which  at  the  epoch  of  Eashi 
was  still  not  very  apparent.  The  collections  of  canon- 


22  RASHI 

ical  law  by  force  of  tradition  renewed  the  humiliating 
measures  prescribed  by  the  last  Roman  emperors. 

The  Jews  throughout  France  spoke  French;  and  they 
either  had  French  names  or  gave  their  Hebrew  names  a 
French  form.  In  the  rabbinical  writings  cities  are  desig- 
nated by  their  real  names,  or  by  Hebrew  names  more  or 
less  ingeniously  adapted  from  the  Latin  or  Romance. 
With  the  secularization  of  their  names,  the  Jews  adopted, 
at  least  partially,  the  customs  and,  naturally,  also  the 
superstitions  of  their  countrymen.  The  valuable  re- 
searches of  Giidemann  and  Israel  Levi  show  how  much 
the  folk-lore  of  the  two  races  have  in  common.  More- 
over, when  two  peoples  come  in  contact,  no  matter  how 
great  the  differences  distinguishing  them,  they  are  bound 
to  exert  mutual  influence  upon  each  other.  No  imper- 
vious partitions  exist  in  sociology. 

It  would  thus  be  an  anachronism  to  represent  the  Jews 
of  the  eleventh  century  as  pale  and  shabby,  ever  bearing 
the  look  of  hunted  animals,  shamefaced,  depressed  by 
clerical  hate,  royal  greed,  and  the  brutality  of  the  masses. 
In  the  Jewries  of  France  at  this  time  there  was  nothing 
sad  or  sombre,  no  strait-laced  orthodoxy,  no  jargon,  no 
disgraceful  costume,  none  of  that  gloomy  isolation  be- 
tokening distrust,  scorn,  and  hate. 

The  practical  activity  of  the  Jews,  their  business 
interests,  and  their  consequent  wealth  did  not  stifle 
intellectual  ideals.  On  the  contrary,  thanks  to  the 
security  assured  them,  they  could  devote  themselves  to 
study.  Their  rich  literature  proves  they  could  occupy 
themselves  at  the  same  time  with  mental  and  material 
pursuits.  "  For  a  people  to  produce  scholars,  it  is 
necessary  that  it  be  composed  of  something  other  than 


THE  JEWS  OF  FBANCE  23 

hard-hearted  usurers  aud  sordid  business  men.  The 
literary  output  is  a  thorough  test  of  social  conditions." " 
Moreover,  the  intellectual  status  of  a  people  always  bears 
relation  to  its  material  and  economic  condition,  and 
so,  where  the  Jews  enjoyed  most  liberty  and  happiness, 
their  literature  has  been  richest  and  most  brilliant. 

From  an  intellectual  point  of  view  the  Jews  resembled 
the  people  among  whom  they  lived.  Like  them,  they 
were  pious,  even  extremely  devout;  and  they  counted  few 
unbelievers  among  their  number.  Sometimes  it  hap- 
pened that  a  religious  person  failed  to  obey  precepts,  but 
no  one  contested  the  foundations  of  belief.  In  the  matter 
of  religion,  it  is  true,  outward  observance  was  guarded 
above  everything  else.  The  Jews,  settled  as  they  were  on 
foreign  soil,  came  to  attach  themselves  to  ceremonials  as 
the  surest  guarantees  of  their  faith.  Naturally  supersti- 
tions prevailed  at  an  epoch  marked  by  a  total  lack  of 
scientific  spirit.  People  believed  in  the  existence  of  men 
without  shadows,  in  evil  demons,  and  so  on.  The  Jews, 
however,  were  less  inclined  to  such  conceptions  than  the 
Christians,  who  in  every  district  had  places  of  pilgrimage 
at  which  they  adored  spurious  bones  and  relics. 

It  would  be  altogether  unjust  not  to  recognize  the 
ethical  results  of  the  constant  practice  of  the  law,  which 
circumscribed  the  entire  life  of  the  Jew.  Talmudic 
legislation  must  not  be  regarded,  as  it  sometimes  is,  as  an 
oppressive  yoke,  an  insufferable  fetter.  Its  exactions  do 
not  make  it  tyrannical,  because  it  is  loyally  and  freely 
accepted,  accepted  even  with  pleasure.  The  whole  life 
of  the  Jew  is  taken  into  consideration  beforehand,  its 
boundaries  are  marked,  its  actions  controlled.  But  this 
submission  entails  no  self-denial ;  it  is  voluntary,  and  the 


24  EASHI 

reason  is  provided  with  sufficient  motives.  Indeed,  it  is 
remarkable  what  freedom  and  breadth  thought  was  able 
to  maintain  in  the  very  bosom  of  orthodoxy. 

"  The  observance  of  the  Law  and,  consequently,  the  study 
of  the  Law  formed  the  basis  of  this  religion.  With  the  fall 
of  the  Temple  the  one  place  disappeared  in  which  the 
Divine  cult  could  legitimately  be  performed;  as  a  result 
the  Jews  turned  for  the  expression  of  their  religious  senti- 
ment with  all  the  more  ardor  toward  the  Law,  now  become 
the  real  sanctuary  of  Judaism  torn  from  its  native  soil, 
the  safeguard  of  the  wandering  race,  the  one  heritage  of 
a  glorious  and  precious  past.  The  recitation  and  study  of 
the  Law  took  the  place  of  religious  ceremonies — hence  the 
name  "school"  (Schul)  for  houses  of  worship  in  France 
and  in  Germany.  The  endeavor  was  made  to  give  the  Law 
definite  form,  to  develop  it,  not  only  in  its  provisions  re- 
maining in  practical  use,  such  as  the  civil  and  penal  code, 
regulations  in  regard  to  the  festivals,  and  private » ob- 
servances, but  also  in  its  provisions  relating  to  the  Temple 
cult  which  had  historical  interest  only.  This  occupation, 
pursued  with  warmth  and  depth  of  feeling  for  a  number 
of  centuries,  appealed  at  once  to  the  intellect  and  the  heart. 
It  may  be  said  that  the  entire  Jewish  race  shared  in  the 
work,  the  scholar  being  removed  from  the  general  mass 
only  in  degree,  not  in  kind."  • 

The  high  level  of  general  instruction  among  the  Jews 
was  all  the  more  remarkable  since  only  a  small  number 
of  literary  works  were  known.  Though  copies  were 
made  of  those  which  enjoyed  the  greatest  reputation, 
the  number  of  manuscripts  was  limited.  Nevertheless, 
soon  after  their  appearance,  important  productions  in 
one  country  came  into  the  hands  of  scholars  of  other 
countries.  Just  as  Christendom  by  force  of  its  spiritual 
bond  formed  a  single  realm,  so  two  strong  chains  bound 
together  Jews  of  widely  separated  regions:  these  were 
their  religion  and  their  language.  Communication  was 
difficult,  roads  were  few  in  number  and  dangerous;  yet, 


THE  JEWS  OF  FBANCE  25 

countervailing   distance   and   danger  was  devotion  to 
religion  and  to  learning. 

But  religion  and  learning  were  one  and  the  same 
thing.  As  was  the  case  in  Christianity,  and  for  the  same 
reasons,  religion  filled  the  whole  of  life  and  engrossed 
all  branches  of  knowledge.  There  was  no  such  thing  as 
secular  science;  religion  placed  its  stamp  on  everything, 
and  turned  the  currents  of  thought  into  its  own  channels. 
One  must  not  hope  therefore  to  find,  among  the  Jews  of 
Northern  France,  those  literary  species  which  blossomed 
and  flourished  in  Spain ;  philosophy  did  not  exist  among 
them,  and  poetry  was  confined  to  a  few  dry  liturgic 
poems.  Their  intellectual  activity  was  concentrated  in 
the  study  of  the  Bible  and  the  Talmud;  but  in  this 
domain  they  acquired  all  the  greater  depth  and  pene- 
tration. Less  varied  as  were  the  objects  of  their  pur- 
suits, they  excelled  in  what  they  undertook,  and  inferior 
though  they  were  in  the  fields  of  philosophy  and  poetry, 
they  were  superior  in  Biblical  exegesis,  and  still  more 
so,  possibly,  in  Talmudic  jurisprudence. 

II 

The  history  of  the  beginnings  of  rabbinical  learning 
in  France  is  wrapped  in  obscurity.  Tradition  has 
it  that  Charlemagne  caused  the  scholar  Kalonymos  to 
come  from  Lucca  to  Mayence.  With  his  sons  he  is  said 
to  have  opened  a  school  there,  which  became  the  centre  of 
Talmudic  studies  in  Lorraine.  Legends,  however  slight 
their  semblance  to  truth,  are  never  purely  fictitious 
in  character;  they  contain  an  element  of  truth,  or, 
at  least,  symbolize  the  truth;  and  this  tradition,  which 
cannot  be  accepted  in  the  shape  in  which  it  has  been 


26  EASHI 

handed  down,  seeing  that  Kalonymos  lived  in  the  tenth 
century,  is  nevertheless  a  fairly  exact  representation 
of  the  continuity  of  the  intellectual  movement.  If  the 
fact  is  not  established  that  Charlemagne  accomplished 
for  the  Jews  what  he  did  for  the  Christians,  that  is, 
revived  their  schools  and  promoted  their  prosperity, 
it  seems  more  certain  that  rabbinical  learning  penetrated 
into  the  northwest  of  Europe  through  the  intermedi- 
ation of  Italy,  which  bridged  the  gap  between  the  Orient 
and  the  Ehine  lands. 

As  is  well  known,  Christian  Italy  during  the  early 
middle  ages,  despite  the  successive  invasions  of  the 
barbarians,  remained  the  centre  of  civilization  and  the 
store-house  of  Occidental  learning.  It  is  in  Italy,  with- 
out doubt,  that  the  Eomanesque  style  of  architecture  had 
its  origin,  and  in  Italy  that  the  study  of  the  Eoman  law 
was  vigorously  resumed.  It  is  to  Italy  also  that  Charle- 
magne turned  when  he  sought  for  scholars  to  place  at  the 
head  of  his  schools.  Moreover,  it  was  on  Italian  soil, 
in  the  fifteenth  century,  that  the  magnificent  blossom 
meriting  its  name,  the  Eenaissance,  was  destined  to  open 
and  unfold  its  literary  and  artistic  beauties. 

Italy  owes  its  glorious  part  in  the  world's  history  both 
to  its  geographical  position  and  its  commercial  impor- 
tance. So  likewise  with  the  Jews  of  Italy,  their  commer- 
cial activities  contributed  to  their  intellectual  prosperity. 
In  the  ninth  century  they  possessed  rabbinical  authori- 
ties, and  in  the  tenth  century,  centres  of  Talmudic  study. 
At  this  period,  the  celebrated  family  of  the  Kalonymides 
went  to  Lorraine  to  establish  itself  there.  For  some 
time  Mayence  was  the  metropolis  of  Judaism  in  the 
Ehine  countries;  and  by  its  community  the  first  acade- 


THE  JEWS  OF  FRANCE  27 

mies  were  established,  the  first  Talmudic  commentaries 
were  composed,  and  decisions  were  made  which  were 
accepted  by  all  the  Jews  of  Christian  Europe.  Soon 
this  intellectual  activity  extended  to  Worms,  to  Speyer, 
and  a  little  later  to  the  western  part  of  Germany  and  the 
northern  part  of  France.7  A  veritable  renaissance  took 
place,  parallel  with  the  movement  of  ideas  which  went 
on  in  the  schools  and  convents  of  the  eleventh  and 
fourteenth  centuries ;*  for  Jewish  culture  is  often  bound 
up  with  the  intellectual  destinies  of  the  neighboring 
peoples. 

For  some  time  the  schools  of  Lorraine  stood  at  the 
head  of  the  Talmudic  movement,  and  it  was  to  them  that 
Eashi  came  a  little  later  to  derive  instruction. 

One  of  the  most  celebrated  offspring  of  the  family  of 
the  Kalonymides  is  Meshullam  ben  Kalonymos,  who 
lived  at  Mayence  in  the  second  half  of  the  tenth  century. 
He  was  a  Talmudist  held  in  high  regard  and  the  com- 
poser of  liturgic  poetry.  He  devoted  himself  to  the 
regulation  of  the  material  and  spiritual  affairs  of  his 
brethren.  Although  he  stood  in  correspondence  with  the 
Babylonian  masters,  he  was  in  a  position  to  pass  judg- 
ment independently  of  them.  Communication  with  the 
East  was  frequent.  The  communities  of  France  and 
Germany  sent  disciples  to  the  Babylonians  and  submitted 
difficulties  to  them.  Tradition  relates  that  the  Gaon 
Natrona'i  (about  865)  even  visited  France.  However 
that  may  be,  the  Jews  of  France  at  an  early  period  were 
acquainted  with  Babylonian  works,  both  the  chronicles 
and  the  legal  codes. 

Other  Talmudists  of  the  tenth  century  are  known,  but 
rabbinical  literature  may  be  said  to  have  commenced 


28  EASHI 

only  with  Gershom  ben  Judah  (about  960-1028).  Ac- 
cording to  tradition  his  master  was  his  contemporary  Ha'i 
Gaon;  in  reality  he  was  the  disciple  of  Judah  ben  Mei'r 
ha-Cohen,  surnamed  Leontin  (about  975).  Originally 
from  Metz,  Gershom  established  himself  at  Mayence, 
to  which  a  large  number  of  pupils  from  neighboring 
countries  soon  flocked  in  order  to  attend  his  school. 
Thus  he  was  the  legatee  of  the  Babylonian  academies, 
the  decay  of  which  became  daily  more  marked.  In  his 
capacity  as  head  of  a  school  as  in  many  other  respects, 
he  was  the  true  forerunner  of  Eashi,  who  carried  on  his 
work  with  greater  command  of  the  subject  and  with  more 
success. 

Eabbenu  Gershom  not  only  gave  Talmudic  learning 
a  fresh  impetus  and  removed  its  centre  to  the  banks 
of  the  Ehine,  but  he  also  exerted  the  greatest  and  most 
salutary  influence  upon  the  social  life  of  his  co-religion- 
ists, through  his  "  Decrees,"  religious  and  moral,  which, 
partly  renewing  older  institutions,  were  accepted  by  all 
the  Jews  of  Christian  countries.  Among  other  things, 
he  forbade  polygamy.  He  merits  consideration  in  two 
aspects,  as  a  Gaon  and  as  one  to  whom  his  disciples  gave 
the  surname  which  still  attaches  to  him,  "  the  Light  of 
the  Exile,"  M eor  horGolah.  Eashi  said  of  him :  "  Eab- 
benu Gershom  has  enlightened  the  eyes  of  the  Captivity ; 
for  we  all  live  by  his  instruction;  all  the  Jews  of  these 
countries  call  themselves  the  disciples  of  his  disciples." 

Gershom  seems  to  have  been  the  first  Ehenish  scholar 
who  resorted  to  the  written  word  for  the  spread  of  his 
teachings.  He  devoted  himself  to  the  establishment  of  a 
correct  text  of  the  Bible  and  the  Talmud,  and  his  chief 
work  is  a  Talmudical  commentary. 


THE  JEWS  OF  FRANCE  29 

Since  his  time  the  continuity  of  learning  has  been  un- 
interrupted. The  seed  sown  by  Rabbenu  Gershom  was 
not  long  in  germinating.  Schools  began  to  multiply  and 
develop  in  Lorraine.  The  one  at  Mayence  prospered  for 
a  long  time,  and  was  eclipsed  only  by  the  schools  of 
Champagne. 

A  rabbi,  Machir,  the  brother  of  Gershom,  by  his 
Talmudic  lexicon  contributed  likewise  to  the  devel- 
opment of  rabbinical  knowledge.  His  four  sons  were 
renowned  scholars,  contemporaries  and  doubtless  fellow- 
students  of  Rashi. 

The  disciples  of  Gershom,  who  continued  the  work  of 
their  master,  are  of  especial  interest  to  us,  because  one  of 
them,  Simon  the  Elder,  was  the  maternal  uncle  of  Rashi, 
and  three  others  were  his  masters.  These  were  Jacob 
ben  Yakar,  Isaac  ha-Levi,  and  Isaac  ben  Judah.  The 
latter  two  were  disciples  also  of  Eliezer  ben  Isaac  the 
Great,  of  Mayence.  Jacob  ben  Yakar  and  Isaac  ha-Levi 
went  to  Worms,  where  they  became  rabbis,  while  Isaac 
ben  Judah  remained  at  Mayence,  and  directed  the  Tal- 
mudic school  there. 

About  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century,  then,  an 
intellectual  ferment  took  place  in  France  and  Lorraine, 
earnest  literary  and  scientific  activity  manifested  itself, 
and  above  all  elements  of  profound  rabbinical  culture 
became  visible.  But  one  who  should  regulate  these 
forces  was  lacking,  a  guide  to  direct  these  activities  and 
to  serve  as  a  model  to  others.  In  order  that  the  move- 
ment might  not  come  to  a  premature  end,  a  master  was 
needed  who  would  give  it  impetus  and  define  its  course, 
who  would  strike  the  decisive  blow.  Such  a  man  there 
3 


30  EASHI 

was,  a  man  who  impressed  his  contemporaries  as  a  scholar 
of  high  degree  and  noble  character,  and  whose  memory 
as  such  is  still  cherished  by  posterity.  This  man  was 
Eashi. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  OF  EASHI 

Little  is  known  concerning  the  life  of  Eashi.  Owing  to 
various  causes  not  a  single  work  is  extant  that  might  be 
used  as  a  guide  for  the  establishment  of  minor  facts. 
Generally  speaking,  Jewish  literature  in  the  middle  ages 
was  of  an  impersonal  character;  practically  no  memoirs 
nor  autobiographies  of  this  period  exist.  The  disciples  of 
the  great  masters  were  not  lavish  of  information  con- 
cerning them.  They  held  their  task  to  be  accomplished 
when  they  had  studied  and  handed  on  the  master's 
works;  regard  for  his  teachings  ranked  above  respect 
for  the  personality  of  the  author.  But  the  figure  of 
Eashi,  as  though  in  despite  of  all  such  obstacles,  has 
remained  popular.  People  wanted  to  know  all  the 
details  of  his  life,  and  they  invented  facts  according  to 
their  desires.  Fiction,  however,  fell  short  of  the  truth. 
Legend  does  not  represent  him  so  great  as  he  must 
actually  have  been.  In  the  present  work,  too,  I  shall  be 
obliged  to  resort  to  comparisons  and  analogies,  to  sup- 
plement by  hypotheses  the  scanty  information  afforded 
by  history,  yet  I  shall  distinguish  the  few  historic  facts 
from  the  mass  of  legends  in  which  they  are  smothered. 

As  of  old  many  cities  in  Greece  asserted  that  they  were 
the  birthplace  of  Homer,  the  national  poet,  so  a  number 
of  cities  disputed  for  the  honor  of  being  the  birthplace 


of  Rashi,  or  of  having  been  his  residence,  or  the  scene  of 
his  death.  Worms  claimed  him  as  one  of  its  rabbis, 
Lunel,  thanks  to  a  confusion  of  names,  has  passed  as 
his  birthplace,  and  Prague  as  the  city  of  his  death.  One 
historian  set  1105  as  the  year  of  his  birth,  though  in  fact 
it  is  the  year  of  his  death.  Others  placed  it  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  and  still  others  even  in  the  four- 
teenth. 

In  the  course  of  this  narrative  other  such  instances  will 
occur — of  fables,  more  or  less  ingenious,  collected  by 
chroniclers  lacking  discrimination.  They  may  make 
pleasant  reading,  although  they  contain  no  element  of 
authenticity.  Besides,  they  are  of  relatively  recent  date, 
and  emanate  to  a  large  extent  from  Italy  and  Spain, 
whose  historians  could  count  upon  the  credulity  of  their 
readers  to  impose  their  inventions  upon  Jews  and 
Christians  alike. 

Confusion  of  this  sort  reigned  in  regard  to  Eashi's  life 
until  1823,  the  year  in  which  the  illustrious  Zunz 
published  the  essay  which  established,  not  only  his  own, 
but  also  Rashi's  reputation,  and  brought  Rashi  forth 
from  the  shadow  of  legend  into  the  full  light  of  history. 

We  owe  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  Zunz  and  other  scholars, 
such  as  Geiger,  Weiss,  Berliner,  and  Epstein,  because, 
with  the  legendary  often  superimposed  upon  the  true, 
they  have  made  it  easy  to  pick  out  the  genuine  from  the 
false.  Now  that  the  result  of  their  labors  is  before  us, 
no  great  difficulty  attaches  to  the  task  of  casting  off 
legend  from  history,  and  extracting  from  the  legendary 
whatever  historic  material  it  contains. 


FROM    A    PHOTOGRAPH 


YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  33 


In  brushing  aside  all  the  myths  with  which  the  bio- 
graphy of  Eashi  is  cobwebbed,  one  finds,  not  a  varied 
life,  rich  in  incident,  but  an  entirely  intellectual  life, 
whose  serenity  was  undisturbed  by  excitement. 

An  event  dividing  Hashi's  life  into  almost  equal  parts 
is  his  taking  up  his  residence  at  Troyes.  During  the 
earlier  period  he  received  his  education,  at  first  in  the 
city  of  his  birth,  then  in  the  academies  of  Lorraine.  On 
his  return  to  Troyes,  he  had  matured  and  was  thoroughly 
equipped.  In  the  school  he  founded  there,  he  grouped 
pupils  about  him  and  wrote  the  works  destined  to  per- 
petuate his  influence. 

First  of  all,  it  is  necessary  to  make  Eashi's  acquaint- 
ance, as  it  were,  to  know  the  names  he  bore  and  those  he 
did  not  bear.  An  example  of  the  fantastic  stories  of 
which  he  was  the  hero  is  afforded  by  the  name  Yarhi, 
which  is  sometimes  still  given  to  him.  It  does  not  date 
further  back  than  the  sixteenth  century,  before  which 
time  he  was  called  E.  Solomon  (Shelomo)  by  the  Jews 
of  France,  and  E.  Salomon  ha-Zarfati  (the  Frenchman) 
by  Jews  outside  of  France.  Christian  scholars  likewise 
called  him  E.  Salomo  Gallicus,  and  also  briefly  E.  Solo- 
mon, as  the  most  celebrated  rabbi  who  ever  bore  that 
name.  So  said  Abbe  Bartolocci,  one  of  the  first  and 
most  eminent  bibliographers  of  rabbinical  literature,  ex- 
plaining that  the  short  appellation  had  the  same  force  as 
when  Saint  Paul  is  designated  simply  as  "  the  apostle." 

The  usual  name  applied  to  Eashi  (E  Sh  I)  is  formed, 
in  accordance  with  a  well-known  Jewish  custom,  from 
the  initials  of  his  name  and  patronymic  in  Hebrew, 


34  EASHI 

Rabbi  Shelomo  Izhaki,9  which  the  Christians  translated 
by  Solomon  Isaacides,  just  as  they  made  Maimonides  of 
Moses  ben  Maimon.  Eaymond  Martini,  the  celebrated 
author  of  the  Pugio  fidei,  seems  to  have  been  the  first 
who  saw  in  Eashi  the  initials  of  the  words,  R.  Solomon 
Yarhi.  He  confused  Eashi  either  with  a  Solomon  of 
Lunel,  mentioned  by  the  traveller  Benjamin  of  Tudela, 
or  with  a  grammarian,  Solomon  ben  Abba  Mari,  of 
Lunel,  who  lived  in  the  second  half  of  the  fourteenth 
century.  Sebastian  Minister,  the  German  Hebraist 
(1489-1552),  and  the  elder  Buxtorf  (1564-1629), 
the  humanist  and  highly  esteemed  Hebrew  scholar, 
popularized  the  mistake,  which  soon  gave  rise  to  an- 
other. L'Empereur,  also  a  scholar  in  Hebraica,  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  went  even  further  than  his 
predecessors,  in  holding  Lunel  l°  to  have  been  the  birth- 
place of  Eashi,  while  Basnage  (1653-1725),  the  cele- 
brated historian  of  the  Jews,  spoke  of  "  Solomon  the 
Lunatic." 

Though  as  early  a  writer  as  Eichard  Simon  (1638- 
1712)  protested  against  the  error  of  making  Lunel  the 
native  city  of  Eashi,  the  mistake  crept  even  into  Jewish 
circles.  Since  this  city  of  Languedoc  was  one  of  the 
principal  centres  of  Jewish  learning  in  the  Provence 
during  the  middle  ages,  Eashi,  in  most  unexpected  fash- 
ion, came  to  swell  the  number  of  "  scholars  "  of  Lunel,  of 
whom  mention  is  frequently  made  in  rabbinical  litera- 
ture. It  even  seems  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  Jews  of  Bordeaux  went  to  Lunel  on  a 
pilgrimage  to  his  tomb. 

In  point  of  fact  Eashi  was  neither  a  German  nor  a 
Provengal;  he  was  born  and  he  died  in  Champagne,  at 
Troyes.  At  that  time  France  was  divided  into  a  dozen 


YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  35 

distinct  countries,  one  of  the  most  important  of  which 
was  the  countship  of  Champagne,  to  the  northeast,  be- 
tween the  Ile-de-France  and  Lorraine.  There  were 
Jews  in  all  the  important  localities  of  the  province,  es- 
pecially in  the  commercial  cities.  In  the  period  with 
which  we  are  dealing,  fairs  took  place  every  year  success- 
ively at  Lagny,  Bar-sur-Aube,  Provins,  Troyes,  and 
again  Provins  and  Troyes.  The  principal  city  was 
Troyes,  which  at  the  end  of  the  ninth  century,  when  it 
contained  about  twelve  thousand  inhabitants,  was  chosen 
as  their  capital  by  the  counts  of  Champagne. 

In  a  wide  plain,  where  the  Seine  divides  into  several 
branches,  rises  the  city  of  Troyes,  maintaining  to  some 
extent  its  medieval  character,  with  its  narrow,  ill- 
paved  streets,  which  of  old  swarmed  with  geese  and 
porkers,  and  with  its  houses  of  wooden  gables  and  over- 
hanging roofs.  Manufactures  prospered  at  Troyes. 
Many  tanneries  were  established  there,  and  parchment 
was  exported  from  all  parts  of  the  district.  In  fact  it 
has  been  suggested  that  the  development  of  the  parch- 
ment industry  at  Troyes  furthered  the  literary  activity 
for  which  the  province  was  noted,  by  providing  writing 
material  at  a  time  when  in  general  it  was  so  rare.  But 
manufactures  in  that  period  had  not  attained  a  high 
degree  of  perfection,  and  the  main  instrument  for  obtain- 
ing wealth  was  commerce,  chiefly  the  commerce  carried 
on  at  fairs,  those  great  lists  periodically  opened  to  the 
commercial  activity  of  a  whole  province  or  a  whole 
country.  Troyes,  celebrated  for  its  fairs,  was  the  scene 
of  two  a  year,  one  beginning  on  St.  John's  Day  (the 
warm  fair),  and  one  beginning  on  St.  Eemy's  Day  (the 


36  EASHI 

cold  fair) .  They  covered  a  quarter  so  important  that  it 
constituted  two  large  parishes  by  itself. 

Although  religon  had  already  begun  to  intervene  in 
the  regulation  of  the  fairs,  Jews  took  a  large  part  in 
them,  and  somewhat  later,  like  the  Jews  of  Poland  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  they  used  them  as  the  occasions  for 
rabbinical  synods.  In  the  Jewish  sources,  the  fairs  of 
Troyes  are  frequently  mentioned.  The  relations  that 
sprang  up  among  the  great  numbers  of  Jews  that  went 
to  them  were  favorable  to  the  cause  of  science,  since  the 
Jews  in  pursuing  their  material  interests  did  not  forget 
those  of  learning.  Thus  the  fairs  exercised  a  certain 
influence  upon  the  intellectual  movement. 

Troyes  was  also  the  seat  of  a  permanent  Jewish  com- 
munity of  some  importance ;  for  a  Eesponsum  of  the  first 
half  of  the  eleventh  century  declared  that  the  regulations 
of  the  community  should  have  the  force  of  law  for  each 
member,  and  when  the  regulations  deal  with  questions 
of  general  import  they  were  to  hold  good  for  neighboring 
communities  as  well.  Another  Eesponsum  dating  from 
the  same  period  shows  that  the  Jews  of  France  owned 
land  and  cultivated  the  vine.  Troyes  no  longer  bears 
visible  traces  of  the  ancient  habitation  of  the  Jews.  It 
is  possible  that  the  parish  of  St.  Frobert  occupies  the 
ground  covered  by  the  old  Jewry;  and  probably  the 
church  of  St.  Frobert,  now  in  ruins,  and  the  church  of 
St.  Pantaleon  were  originally  synagogues.  But  in 
Eashi's  works  there  are  more  striking  evidences  that 
Jews  were  identified  with  Troyes.  Certain  of  his  ex- 
pressions or  other  indications  attach  them  to  the  city 
of  Troyes,  "  our  city,"  as  he  says. 


YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  37 

Bashi,  then,  was  born  at  Troyes  in  1040 — the  year  of 
Gershom's  death,  some  authors  affirm,  who  are  more 
concerned  with  the  pragmatism  of  history  than  its  truth, 
more  with  scientific  continuity  than  with  the  sequence 
of  events.  But  if  it  is  almost  certain  that  the  rabbi, 
who,  as  I  said,  was  the  precursor  of  Eashi,  had  been 
dead  for  twelve  years,  1040  (possibly  1038)  is  probably 
the  year  of  the  death  of  another  authority,  no  less  cele- 
brated, Hai  Gaon,  whose  passing  away  marks  the  irre- 
parable decadence  of  the  Babylonian  Gaonate.  The 
French  rabbi  and  his  Spanish  colleagues  were  destined  to 
harvest  the  fruits  of  this  Gaonate  and  carry  on  its  work, 
exemplifying  the  words  of  the  Talmud:  "When  one 
star  is  extinguished  in  Israel,  another  star  rises  on  the 
horizon." 

In  order  that  Eashi  should  have  a  setting  in  accord 
with  so  high  a  position,  legend  has  surrounded  his  family 
with  a  nimbus  of  glory.  History,  it  is  true,  does  not 
make  mention  of  his  ancestors,  and  this  silence,  joined 
to  the  popularity  which  Eashi  came  to  enjoy,  inspired, 
or  was  an  added  stimulus  to,  the  fantastic  genealogic 
theories  of  those  who  in  their  admiration  of  him,  or 
through  pride  of  family,  declared  him  to  have  been 
descended  from  a  rabbi  of  the  third  century,  Johanan 
ha-Sandlar.u  All  that  can  be  said  with  certainty  is, 
that  his  maternal  uncle  was  Simon  the  Elder,  a  dis- 
ciple of  Gershom  and  a  learned  and  respected  rabbi. 
Bashi's  father  Isaac  appears  to  have  been  well-educated. 
Eashi  on  one  occasion  mentions  a  certain  bit  of  in- 
struction he  had  received  from  him.  Tradition,  fond 
of  ascribing  illustrious  ancestors  to  its  heroes,  would 
see  in  this  Isaac  one  who  through  his  knowledge  and 


38  KASHI 

godliness  deserved  to  share  in  the  renown  of  his  son, 
and  to  whom  his  son,  moreover,  rendered  pious  homage 
by  quoting  him  in  the  opening  passage 12  of  the  commen- 
tary on  Genesis.  We  would  willingly  believe  Rashi 
capable  of  a  delicate  attention  of  this  kind,  only  we 
know  that  the  Isaac  cited  is  a  certain  Talmudic  scholar. 
Tradition,  letting  its  fancy  play  upon  the  lives  of 
great  men,  delights  also  in  clothing  their  birth  with 
tales  of  marvels.  Sometimes  the  miraculous  occurs 
even  before  they  are  born  and  points  to  their  future 
greatness.  The  father  of  Rashi,  for  instance,  is  said  to 
have  possessed  a  precious  gem  of  great  value.  Some 
Christians  wanted  to  take  it  away  from  him,  either 
because  they  desired  to  put  it  to  a  religious  use,  or 
because  they  could  not  bear  the  sight  of  such  a  treasure 
in  the  hands  of  a  Jew.  Isaac  obstinately  refused  their 
offers.  One  day  the  Christians  lured  him  into  a  boat, 
and  demanded  that  he  give  up  his  gem.  Isaac,  taking  a 
heroic  stand,  threw  the  object  of  their  ardent  desires 
into  the  water.  Then  a  mysterious  voice  was  heard  in 
his  school  pronouncing  these  words:  "A  son  will  be 
born  to  thee,  0  Isaac,  who  will  enlighten  the  eyes  of  all 
Israel."  According  to  a  less  familiar  tradition,  Isaac 
lived  in  a  seaport  town,  where  he  earned  a  poor  liveli- 
hood as  stevedore.  Once  he  found  a  pearl  in  the  harbor, 
and  went  in  all  haste  to  show  it  to  his  wife,  the  daughter 
of  a  jeweler.  Realizing  the  value  of  the  pearl,  she  could 
not  contain  herself,  and  went  forthwith  to  a  jeweler. 
He  offered  her  ten  thousand  ducats,  double  its  value, 
because  the  duke  was  anxious  to  buy  it  as  an  adornment 
for  the  bishop's  cope.  The  woman  would  not  listen  to 
the  proposition,  and  ran  back  to  her  husband  to  tell  him 


YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  39 

to  what  use  the  pearl  was  going  to  be  put.  Bather  than 
have  it  adorn  a  bishop's  vestment,  Isaac  threw  it  into 
the  sea,  sacrificing  his  fortune  to  his  God. 

The  scene  of  another  tradition  is  laid  at  Worms. 
One  day  his  wife,  who  had  become  pregnant,  was 
walking  along  a  street  of  the  city  when  two  carriages 
coming  from  opposite  directions  collided.  The  woman 
in  danger  of  being  crushed  pressed  up  close  against  a 
wall,  and  the  wall  miraculously  sank  inward  to  make 
way  for  her.  This  made  Isaac  fear  an  accusation  of 
witchcraft,  and  he  left  Worms  for  Troyes,  where  a  son 
was  born  to  him,  whom  he  named  Solomon. 

To  turn  from  the  mythical  to  the  hypothetical — the 
young  Solomon  probably  received  his  early  education  in 
his  own  family,  and  what  this  education  was,  can  easily 
be  conceived.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  father  himself  to 
take  charge  of  the  elementary  instruction  of  his  son  and 
turn  the  first  glimmerings  of  the  child's  reason  upon  the 
principles  of  religion.  This  instruction  was  concentrated 
upon  the  observance  of  laws  and  customs.  "  From  the 
tenderest  age,"  says  Dr.  M.  Berliner,  "  the  child  was  ini- 
tiated into  the  observance  of  religious  precepts,  and  was 
put  upon  his  guard  against  their  transgression.  His 
parents  had  but  one  aim,  to  inculcate  in  him  the  religion 
of  his  ancestors  and  render  the  Law,  the  source  of  this 
religion,  accessible  to  him.  He  was  thus  inured  to  the 
struggle  of  life,  in  which  his  shield  was  belief  in  God. 
The  mother  also  took  part  in  the  rearing  of  her  child. 
Her  lullabies  were  often  prayers  or  Biblical  hymns,  and 
although  the  women,  as  a  rule,  did  not  receive  a  thorough 
education,  they  effectually  helped  to  make  observant  de- 
votees of  the  Law  of  their  children."  "  Five  or  six  was 


40  RASHI 

the  age  at  which  Hebrew  was  begun  to  be  taught  to  the 
child,  and  the  occasion  was  usually  celebrated  by  a  pic- 
turesque ceremony  full  of  poetic  feeling.  On  the  morning 
of  the  Pentecost,  the  festival  which  commemorates  the 
giving  of  the  Law  on  Mt.  Sinai,  or  on  the  morning  of 
the  Rejoicing  of  the  Law,  the  day  devoted  above  all 
others  to  honoring  the  Law,  the  child,  dressed  in  his 
holiday  clothes  and  wrapped  in  a  Tallit,  was  led  to  the 
synagogue  by  his  father  or  by  a  scholar  who  acted  as 
sponsor.  In  the  synagogue  the  child  listened  to  the 
reading  of  the  Law;  then  he  was  led  to  the  house  of  the 
teacher  to  whom  his  education  was  to  be  entrusted.  The 
teacher  took  him  in  his  arms,  "  as  a  nursing-father  car- 
rieth  the  sucking  child,"  and  presented  him  with  a  tab- 
let, on  which  were  written  the  Hebrew  alphabet  and  some 
verses  from  the  Bible  applicable  to  the  occasion.  The 
tablet  was  then  spread  with  honey,  which  the  child  ate 
as  if  to  taste  the  sweetness  of  the  Law  of  God.  The 
child  was  also  shown  a  bun  made  by  a  young  maiden, 
out  of  flour  kneaded  together  with  milk  and  with  oil  or 
honey,  and  bearing  among  other  inscriptions  the  words 
of  Ezekiel  :  "  Son  of  man,  cause  thy  belly  to  eat,  and 
fill  thy  bowels  with  this  roll  that  I  give  thee.  Then  did 
I  eat  it ;  and  it  was  in  my  mouth  as  honey  for  sweetness." 
Other  Biblical  passages  were  inscribed  on  the  shell  of  an 
egg,  and  after  they  were  read,  the  bun  and  the  egg  as 
well  as  apples  and  other  fruit  were  eaten  by  the  pupils 
present. 

This  ceremony,  marred  only  by  the  introduction  of 
superstitious  practices,  such  as  the  conjuring  up  of  evil 
demons,  was  well  adapted  to  stamp  itself  on  the  child's 
mind,  and  its  naive  symbolism  was  bound  to  make  a 


YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  41 

profound  impression  upon  his  imagination.  Pagan  an- 
tiquity knew  of  nothing  so  delicate  and  at  the  same  time 
so  elevated  in  sentiment.  Pindar,  and  Horace  after  him, 
conceived  the  fancy  that  the  bees  of  Hymettus  alighted 
on  the  child's  brow  and  dropped  rich  honey  upon  it. 
The  Jewish  celebration  of  a  new  period  in  childhood, 
though  not  a  poetic  fiction,  is  none  the  less  charming  and 
picturesque.  It  shows  how  precious  was  the  cultivation 
of  the  mind  to  a  people  whom  the  world  delights  to  rep- 
resent as  absorbed  by  material  interests  and  consumed 
by  the  desire  for  wealth.  Education  has  always  been 

•/  «/ 

highly  valued  among  the  Jews,  who  long  acted  up  to 
the  saying  of  Lessing:  "The  schoolmaster  holds  the 
future  in  his  hands."  The  religious  law  is  a  system  of 
instruction,  the  synagogue  is  a  school.  It  will  redound 
to  the  eternal  honor  of  Judaism  that  it  raised  the  dis- 
semination of  knowledge  to  the  height  of  a  religious 
precept.  At  a  time  when  among  the  Christians  knowl- 
edge was  the  special  privilege  of  the  clergy,  learning  was 
open  to  every  Jew,  and,  what  is  still  finer,  the  pursuit  of 
it  was  imposed  upon  him  as  a  strict  obligation.  The 
recalcitrant,  say  the  legalists,  is  Compelled  to  employ  a 
tutor  for  his  child.  Every  scholar  in  Israel  is  obliged 
to  gather  children  about  him ;  and  the  rabbinical  works 
contain  most  detailed  recommendations  concerning  the 
organization  of  schools  and  methods  of  instruction.  One 
comes  upon  principles  and  rules  of  pedagogy  unusually 
advanced  for  their  time.  For  instance,  teachers  were 
forbidden  to  have  more  than  forty  pupils,  and  were  not 
to  use  a  more  severe  means  of  punishment  than  whipping 
with  a  small  strap.  In  Christian  schools,  on  the  con- 
trary, pedagogic  methods  were  backward  and  barbarous. 


42  EASHI 

It  was  considered  an  excellent  plan  to  beat  all  pupils 
with  the  ferule,  in  order  to  make  knowledge  enter  the 
heads  of  the  bad  and  to  keep  the  good  from  the  sin  of 
pride. 

Among  the  Jews  instruction  was  tempered  to  suit  the 
faculty  of  the  learner.  First  the  child  was  taught  to 
read  Hebrew,  translate  the  daily  prayers,  and  recite  the 
more  important  of  them  by  heart.  Then  the  Penta- 
teuch beginning  with  Leviticus  was  explained  to  him, 
and,  if  necessary,  it  was  translated  into  French.  It 
was  read  with  a  special  chant.  Eashi,  be  it  said  paren- 
thetically, by  his  commentary  gave  this  Bible  instruction 
a  more  solid  basis.  Not  until  the  pupil  was  a  little 
older  did  he  study  the  Talmud,  which  is  so  well  qualified 
to  develop  intelligence  and  clear-headedness.  His  ele- 
mentary education  completed,  and  provided  he  had  shown 
taste  and  inclination  for  the  more  difficult  studies,  the 
young  man  went  to  special  schools.  But  if  he  had  not 
shown  signs  of  progress,  he  was  taught  simply  to  read 
Hebrew  and  understand  the  Bible. 

The  author  of  a  curious  pedagogic  regulation  in  the 
middle  ages  fixes  the  whole  term  of  study  at  fourteen 
years:  the  seven  years  preceding  the  religious  majority 
of  the  child  are  spent  in  the  local  school,  at  the  study  of 
the  Pentateuch  (two  years),  at  the  study  of  the  rest  of 
the  Bible  (two  years),  and  at  the  study  of  the  easier 
Talmudic  treatises  (three  years) .  The  remaining  seven 
years  are  devoted  to  the  higher  study  of  the  Talmud  in 
an  academy  outside  the  birthplace  of  the  youth.  This 
education  was  obtained  sometimes  from  private  teach- 
ers, and  sometimes  in  schools  founded  and  maintained  at 
the  expense  of  the  community  or  even  of  educational 
societies. 


YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  43 

A  sufficiently  clear  idea  may  thus  be  obtained  of 
Eashi's  early  education;  and  in  assuming  that  he  soon 
distinguished  himself  for  precocity  and  for  maturity  of 
thought,  we  shall  not  be  shooting  wide  of  the  mark.  But 
legend  will  not  let  its  heroes  off  so  cheaply ;  legend  will 
have  it  that  Eashi,  in  order  to  complete  his  education, 
travelled  to  the  most  distant  lands.  Not  satisfied  with 
having  him  go  to  the  south  of  France,  to  Narbonne,  to 
the  school  of  Moses  ha-Darshan  (who  had  doubtless  died 
before  Rashi's  coming  to  his  school  was  a  possibility), 
or  to  Lunel,  to  attend  the  school  of  Zerahiah  ha-Levi 
(not  yet  born),  tradition  maintains  that  at  the  age  of 
thirty-three  Eashi  made  the  tour  of  almost  the  whole 
world  as  then  known,  in  order  to  atone  for  a  mistake 
made  by  his  father,  who  regretted  having  lost  a  precious 
object,  and  also  in  order  to  assure  himself  that  his 
commentaries  had  not  been  surpassed.  He  is  said  to 
have  traversed  Italy,  Greece,  Egypt,  Palestine,  and 
Persia,  returning  by  way  of  Germany. 

So  long  a  voyage  must,  of  course,  have  been  marked  by 
a  number  of  events.  In  Egypt,  Eashi  became  the  dis- 
ciple— the  more  exigent  say,  the  intimate  friend — of 
Maimonides,  who,  as  we  all  know,  was  born  in  1135, 
nearly  a  century  later  than  Rashi.  Maimonides,  as 
fiction  recounts,  conceived  a  great  affection  for  Eashi, 
and  imparted  to  him  all  his  own  learning.  Not  to  fall 
behind  Maimonides  in  courtesy,  Eashi  showed  him  his 
commentaries,  and  Maimonides  at  the  end  of  his  life 
declared  that  he  would  have  written  more  commentaries, 
had  he  not  been  anticipated  by  the  French  rabbi. 

While  in  the  Orient  Eashi  is  represented  as  having 
met  a  monk,  and  the  two  discussed  the  superiority  of 


44  EASHI 

their  respective  religions.  At  the  inn  the  monk  sudden- 
ly fell  sick.  Kashi,  caring  for  him  as  for  a  brother, 
succeeded  in  curing  him  by  means  of  a  miraculous 
remedy.  The  monk  wanted  to  thank  him,  but  Rashi 
interrupted,  saying:  "Thou  owest  me  nothing  in 
return.  Divided  as  we  are  by  our  religions,  we  are 
united  by  charity,  which  my  religion  imposes  upon  me  as 
a  duty.  If  thou  comest  upon  a  Jew  in  misfortune,  aid 
him  as  I  have  aided  thee."  Fictitious  though  the 
story  be,  it  is  not  unworthy  the  noble  character  of  Rashi. 
He  was  noble,  therefore  noble  deeds  are  ascribed  to  him. 

On  his  return  Rashi  is  said  to  have  passed  through 
Prague,  whither  his  reputation  had  preceded  him.  On 
his  entrance  into  the  synagogue,  the  acclamations  of  the 
faithful  proved  to  him  the  admiration  they  felt  for  the 
young  rabbi  of  only  thirty-six  years.  The  pleasure  man- 
ifested by  the  Jews  irritated  Duke  Vratislav,  who  had 
the  famous  rabbi  arrested,  brought  before  him,  and 
questioned  in  the  presence  of  his  counsellor,  the  Bishop 
of  Olmiitz.  The  bishop  raising  his  eyes  recognized  in 
the  prisoner  the  Jew  who  had  saved  his  life,  and  he  told 
the  story  to  the  duke.  The  order  was  immediately  given 
to  set  Rashi  free;  but  the  people,  thinking  the  Jews  lost, 
had  fallen  upon  the  Jewish  quarter.  Rashi  threw  him- 
self at  the  feet  of  the  sovereign,  and  begged  protection 
for  his  brethren.  Provided  with  a  safe-conduct,  Rashi 
went  forth  to  appease  the  mob.  The  Jews  in  their 
great  joy  saluted  him  as  their  savior.  Tradition  adds 
that  the  duke  conceived  great  admiration  for  the  Jewish 
scholar,  and  made  him  one  of  his  advisers. 

Another,  even  sweeter  reward,  awaited  him.  Rebecca, 
the  daughter  of  his  host,  fell  in  love  with  him,  and,  as 


YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  45 

Eashi  returned  the  feeling,  her  father  consented  to  the 
marriage. 

But  all  this  is  on  the  face  of  it  romance.  Certain 
passages  in  Kashi's  works  give  abundant  proof  that 
Eashi  never  visited  either  Palestine  or  Babylonia,  and 
his  conception  of  the  geography  of  the  two  countries  is 
utterly  fantastic.  For  instance,  he  believed  that  the 
Euphrates  flowed  from  the  one  land  into  the  other. 
Moreover,  he  himself  admitted  that  his  ideas  concerning 
them  were  gathered  only  from  the  Bible  and  the 
Talmud.14 

Though  Eashi  did  not  let  his  curiosity  carry  him  to 
all  parts  of  the  globe,  he  did  not  confine  himself  to  his 
birthplace.  He  went  first  to  Worms  and  then  to  May- 
ence,  remaining  some  length  of  time  in  both  places.  He 
was  moved  to  the  step,  not  by  taste  for  travel,  but  by 
taste  for  study,  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  his 
time,  by  which  a  student  went  from  school  to  school  in 
order  to  complete  his  knowledge.  Of  old,  it  was  custom- 
ary for  the  workman  to  make  the  tour  of  France  for  the 
purpose  of  perfecting  himself  in  his  trade  and  finding 
out  the  different  processes  of  manufacture.  Similarly, 
the  student  went  from  city  to  city,  or,  remaining  in  the 
same  place,  from  school  to  school,  in  order  to  study  a 
different  subject  under  each  master  according  to  the 
manuscripts  which  the  particular  master  happened  to 
possess,  and  which  he  made  his  pupils  copy.  So  far  from 
being  disqualified  from  entering  a  school  on  account  of 
vagabondage,  the  stranger  student  was  accorded  a  warm 
welcome,  especially  if  he  was  himself  a  scholar. 
Strangers  found  open  hospitality  in  the  community,  and 
were  sometimes  taken  in  by  the  master  himself.  Knowl- 
4 


46  EASHI 

edge  and  love  of  knowledge  were  safe-conducts.  In 
every  city  the  lettered  new-comer  found  hosts  and 
friends. 

Kashi  probably  stood  in  need  of  such  hospitality  and 
protection,  for,  if  an  obscure  remark  made  by  him  may 
be  relied  upon,  his  life  as  a  student  was  not  free  from 
care,  and  he  must  have  suffered  all  sorts  of  privations. 
Nor  was  it  rare  that  fortune  failed  to  smile  upon  the 
students,  and — not  to  give  a  list  of  examples — cases  of 
poverty  were  fairly  frequent  in  the  Christian  universities, 
at  which  mendicancy  itself  was  almost  respectable.  The 
temptation  might  be  legitimate  to  sentimentalize  over 
this  love  of  knowledge,  this  zeal  for  work,  as  they  mani- 
fested themselves  in  Eashi,  causing  him  to  brave  all  the 
evil  strokes  of  fortune  for  their  sake;  but  one  must 
strain  a  point  to  take  him  literally  when  he  says,  as  he 
does  in  a  certain  somewhat  involved  passage,  that  he 
studied  "without  nourishment  and  without  garments." 
However  that  may  be,  the  same  passage  shows  that  while 
still  a  student  whose  course  was  but  half  completed,  he 
married,  in  conformity  with  the  Talmudic  maxim, 
which  recommends  the  Jew  to  marry  at  eighteen  years  of 
age.  From  time  to  time  he  went  to  visit  his  family  at 
Troyes,  always  returning  to  Worms  or  Mayence. 

The  fact  that  the  academies  of  Lorraine  which  Eashi 
frequented  were  in  his  day  the  great  centres  of  Talmudic 
learning,  is  due  to  the  happy  lot  which  the  Jews  enjoyed 
in  that  country.  The  chief  trading  route  of  Europe  at 
that  time  connected  Italy  with  Ehenish  Germany,  and 
the  Jews  knew  how  to  render  themselves  indispensable  in 
the  traffic  along  this  route.  Moreover,  they  lived  on  good 
terms  with  their  neighbors.  The  explanation  of  the 


YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  47 

cordial  relations  between  Jews  and  Christians  lies  in  the 
ease  with  which  the  Jews  rose  to  the  level  of  general 
culture.  The  architecture  of  their  synagogues  is  a  strik- 
ing example.  The  cathedral  of  Worms  was  built  in  1034, 
at  the  same  period  as  the  synagogue  there.  The  two 
structures  display  so  many  similarities  that  one  is 
tempted  to  believe  they  represent  the  handiwork  of  the 
same  builders.  At  all  events,  it  is  clear  that  the  Jews 
cultivated  the  Romanesque  style,  so  majestic  in  its  sim- 
plicity.1* 

Lorraine  was  not  at  that  time  a  province  of  the 
German  Empire;  and  Rashi  leaving  the  banks  of  the 
Seine  for  those  of  the  Rhine  did  not  expatriate  himself 
in  the  true  sense  of  the  word.  Lorraine,  or,  as  it  was 
then  called,  Lotharingia,  the  country  of  Lothair  (this  is 
the  name  that  occurs  in  the  rabbinical  sources),  was  more 
than  half  French.  Situated  between  France  and  Ger- 
many, it  came  within  the  sphere  of  French  influence. 
French  was  the  language  in  current  use,  spoken  by  Jew 
and  Christian  alike.  German  words,  in  fact,  were  galli- 
cized  in  pronunciation.  In  Rashi's  day  the  barons  of 
Lorraine  rendered  homage  to  the  king  of  France, 
Henry  I.  Naturally,  then,  the  Jews  of  Lorraine  and 
those  of  Northern  France  were  in  close  intellectual  com- 
munion. The  academies  along  the  Rhine  and  the 
Moselle  formed,  as  it  were,  the  link  between  France  and 
Germany.  In  general,  and  despite  the  rarity  and  diffi- 
culty of  communication,  the  Jews  of  France,  Germany, 
and  Italy  entered  freely  into  relations  with  one  another." 

No  testimony  exists  to  prove  that  Rashi,  as  has  been 
said,  studied  at  Speyer,  at  which,  without  doubt,  R. 
Eliakim  had  not  yet  begun  to  teach.  Possibly,  Rashi 


48  EASHI 

did  go  to  Germany,  if  confidence  is  to  be  placed  in  some 
information  he  gives  concerning  "the  country  of  Ash- 
kenaz,"  and  if  the  fact  may  be  deduced  from  the  occur- 
rence in  his  commentaries  of  some  dozen  German  words, 
the  authenticity  of  which  is  not  always  certain. 

Though  doubt  may  attach  to  Eashi's  journeys,  it  is 
certain  that  Eashi  passed  the  larger  number  of  his  years 
of  study  (about  1055-1065)  in  Worms.  For  a  long 
time  it  was  thought — and  the  belief  still  obtains — that  he 
also  gave  instruction  in  Worms ;  and  recently  a  street  in 
the  city  was  named  after  him.  Tradition  has  connected 
many  things  with  this  alleged  stay  of  Eashi  as  rabbi  at 
Worms.  Even  in  our  days  visitors  are  shown  the  school 
and  the  little  synagogue  attached  to  it  as  recalling  his 
sojourn  in  the  place;  and  a  small  building  touching  the 
eastern  wall  of  the  great  synagogue  is  also  supposed  to 
perpetuate  his  memory,  and  it  is  still  called  the  "  Eashi 
Chapel/'  At  the  bottom  of  the  wall  a  recess  is  visible, 
miraculously  caused  in  order  to  save  his  mother  when 
her  life  was  endangered  by  the  two  carriages."  Some 
say  that  Eashi  taught  from  this  niche,  and  a  seat  in  it, 
raised  on  three  steps,  called  the  Eashi  Chair,  is  still 
pointed  out. 

These  traditions  do  not  merit  credence.  Moreover, 
they  are  of  comparatively  recent  origin.  For  a  long 
time  the  school  bore  the  name,  not  of  Eashi,  but  of 
Eleazar  of  Worms,  and  it  was  not  built  until  the  begin- 
ning of  the  thirteenth  century.  Destroyed  in  1615,  it 
was  restored  in  1720  through  the  generosity  of  Loeb 
Sinzheim,  of  Vienna,  and  at  present  it  is  the  Jewish  hos- 
pital. Alongside  the  school  was  a  little  chapel,  belonging 
to  it,  which  was  destroyed  in  1615,  restored  several  years 


YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  49 

later,  and  finally  burned  by  the  French  in  1689.  The 
other  chapel,  the  so-called  "  Eashi  Chapel,"  his  Yeshibah 
(school),  is  so  tiny  that  it  could  hardly  have  held  the 
crowd  of  hearers  who  thronged  there,  as  tradition  has  it, 
in  order  to  listen  to  him.  Besides,  the  building  did  not 
bear  the  name  of  Eashi  when  in  1623  David  Joshua 
Oppenheim,  head  of  the  community,  erected  the  school 
and  adjoining  chapel,  as  a  Hebrew  inscription  in  the 
southern  wall  of  the  chapel  declares.  The  chapel  having 
lost  its  utility  was  closed  in  1760,  and  from  this  time  on 
it  has  been  consecrated  to  the  memory  of  Eashi.  It  was 
restored  in  1855. 

At  Worms  Eashi  first  studied  under  the  head  of  the 
Talmudic  academy  there,  Jacob  ben  Yakar,  by  that  time 
a  man  well  on  in  years.  His  age  doubtless  explains  the 
respect  and  veneration  paid  him,  to  which  his  disciple 
gave  touching  expression.  But  we  know  besides  how 
sincere  was  his  piety,  his  humility,  and  his  spirit  of  self- 
denial.  One  day  a  Christian  delivered  several  tuns  of 
wine  to  a  Jew  of  Worms  under  peculiar  conditions. 
Jacob  did  not  want  to  decide  so  complicated  and  delicate 
a  question,  and  he  fled.  Eashi  and  another  disciple 
pursued  and  overtook  him.  Then  he  authorized  the  use 
of  the  wine. 

Once  when  the  community  was  going  to  pay  its  re- 
spects to  the  emperor  or  the  governor,  Jacob  declined  the 
honor  of  heading  the  procession.  "  I  am  nothing  but  a 
poor  man,"  he  said.  "  Let  others  bring  their  money,  I 
can  offer  only  my  prayers.  Each  should  give  of  that 
which  he  has."  Other  characteristics  of  his  are  men- 
tioned. Once  he  and  his  colleague,  Eliezer,  surnamed  the 
Great,  took  an  animal  they  had  bought  to  the  slaughter 


50  EASHI 

house.  There  it  was  found  that  there  was  an  imperfec- 
tion in  its  body;  according  to  Eliezer  the  imperfection 
rendered  it  unfit  for  eating;  according  to  Jacob  it  was 
of  no  importance.  The  animal  having  been  divided, 
Eliezer  threw  his  share  away.  Then  Jacob  did  the  same, 
saying  that  he  would  not  eat  the  meat  of  an  animal 
when  another  denied  himself  the  enjoyment  of  it.  Later 
it  is  told  of  Jacob  that  in  his  humility  he  swept  the  floor 
of  the  synagogue  with  his  beard.  To  cite  Kashi  himself, 
"  I  never  protest  against  the  usages  in  the  school  of  my 
master,  Jacob  ben  Yakar:  I  know  that  he  possessed  the 
finest  qualities.  He  considered  himself  a  worm  which 
is  trodden  underfoot,  and  he  never  arrogated  to  himself 
the  honor — though  he  would  have  been  justified  in  so 
doing — of  having  introduced  any  innovation  whatso- 
ever." 

It  seems  that  Kashi,  who  spoke  of  Jacob  ben  Yakar 
with  the  utmost  respect,  and  called  him  "  my  old  mas- 
ter," studied  not  only  the  Talmud  but  also  the  Bible 
under  his  guidance. 

The  scholar  who  desired  to  obtain  a  grasp  on  all  the 
studies,  if  not  in  their  full  content,  at  least  in  all  their 
variety,  had  to  devote  many  years  to  study  at  a  school, 
not  necessarily  the  same  school,  throughout  his  student 
years,  for  since  the  celebrity  of  a  school  depended  upon 
the  knowledge  and  renown  of  its  head,  it  gained  and  lost 
pupils  with  its  master. 

Thus,  on  the  death  of  Jacob  ben  Yakar,  Rashi 
studied  under  the  guidance  of  his  successor,  Isaac  ben 
Eleazar  ha-Levi,"  though  not  for  long,  it  seems.  Wish- 
ing in  a  way  to  complete  the  cycle  of  instruction, 
he  went  to  Mayence,  the  centre  of  great  Talmudic  activi- 


YOUTH  AND  EDUCATION  51 

ty.  The  school  here  was  directed  by  Isaac  ben  Judah 
(about  1050-1080),  sometimes  called  the  "  Frenchman." 
Rashi  considered  Isaac  ben  Judah  his  master  par  excel- 
lence. In  this  school  were  composed  the  Talmudic  com- 
mentaries generally  attributed  to  R.  Gershom  and  some- 
times cited  under  the  title  of  "  Commentaries  of  the 
Scholars  of  Mayence."  Isaac  ben  Judah — not  to  be  con- 
founded with  Isaac  ha-Levi,  both  having  been  the  dis- 
ciples of  Eliezer  the  Great — was  scrupulously  pious,  and 
absolutely  bound  by  traditional  usage. 

Rashi,  it  thus  becomes  apparent,  was  not  content  to 
learn  from  only  one  master,  he  attended  various  schools, 
as  if  he  had  had  a  prevision  of  his  future  task,  to  sum  up 
and,  as  it  were,  concentrate  all  Talmudic  teachings  and 
gather  the  fruits  of  the  scientific  activities  of  all  these 
academies.  Similarly,  Judah  the  Saint,  before  he  be- 
came the  redactor  of  the  Mishnah,  placed  himself  under 
a  number  of  learned  men,  "  as  if,"  says  Graetz,  "  he  had 
had  a  presentiment  that  one  day  he  would  collect  the 
most  diverse  opinions  and  put  an  end  to  the  juridical 
debates  of  the  Tannaim." 

Rashi's  intellectual  status  during  these  years  of  study 
must  not  be  misunderstood.  Pupil  he  doubtless  was, 
but  such  a  one  as  in  course  of  time  entered  into  discus- 
sions with  his  teachers,  and  to  whom  questions  were 
submitted  for  decision.  It  may  even  be  that  toward  the 
end  of  his  school  period,  he  commenced  to  compose  his 
Talmudic  commentaries,  or,  rather,  revise  the  notes  of 
his  masters. 

At  Worms  as  at  Mayence,  his  fellow-students  probably 
counted  among  their  number  those  young  scholars  who 
remained  his  friends  and  correspondents.  Such  were 


52  RASHI 

Azriel  ben  Nathan,  his  kinsman  Eliakim  ha-Levi  ben 
Meshullam,  of  Speyer  (born  about  1030),  Solomon  ben 
Simson,  Nathan  ben  Machir  and  his  brothers  Menahem 
and  Yakar,  Meir  ha-Cohen  and  his  son  Abraham, 
Samuel  ha-Levi  and,  chief  of  all,  his  brother  David, 
Nathan  ben  Jehiel  and  his  brothers  Daniel  and  Abra- 
ham, Joseph  ben  Judah  Ezra,  Durbal,  and  Mei'r  ben 
Isaac  ben  Samuel18  (about  1060),  acting  rabbi  and 
liturgical  poet,  mentioned  by  Eashi  in  terms  of  praise 
and  several  times  cited  by  him  as  an  authority.  Meir 
of  Kameru,  later  the  son-in-law  of  Eashi,  also  studied  at 
the  academies  of  Lorraine,  though  probably  not  at  the 
same  time  as  Eashi,  but  a  short  while  after. 

As  is  natural,  it  was  of  his  teachers  that  Eashi  pre- 
served the  most  faithful  recollections,  and  he  refers  to 
them  as  authoritative  even  after  he  had  surpassed  them 
in  knowledge  and  reputation.  He  does  not  always  men- 
tion their  names  in  repeating  their  opinions.  If  it 
were  possible  to  make  a  distinction  and  decide  the 
authorship  of  each  sentence,  it  would  be  found  that  we 
are  not  far  from  the  truth  in  asserting  that  the  greater 
part  of  the  pupil's  work  was  the  work  of  his  masters.10 

But  in  literature,  as  elsewhere,  honor  does  not  redound 
to  the  workmen  who  have  gotten  the  material  together, 
but  to  the  architect,  wise  and  skilful,  who  conceives  and 
carries  out  the  plan  for  the  entire  edifice,  and,  with  the 
stones  others  have  brought,  constructs  a  monument  of 
vast  proportions. 


CHAPTER  III 
RASHI  AT  TROYES — LAST  YEAKS 

The  youth.  Rashi  has  now  completed  his  apprentice- 
ship; in  his  studies  and  travels  he  has  amassed  a  vast 
store  of  information,  which  he  will  use  for  the  profit  of 
his  contemporaries  and  of  posterity ;  and  he  now  believes 
himself  in  possession  of  sufficient  knowledge  and  exper- 
ience to  strike  out  for  himself.  Moreover,  he  must  now 
provide  for  his  family — we  have  seen  that  he  married 
while  still  a  student.  But  he  does  not  give  up  his  studies. 

His  change  of  abode  was  the  only  change  in  his  life, 
a  life  of  remarkable  unity,  the  life  of  a  student.  Rashi 
gave  himself  up  entirely  to  study,  to  study  without  ces- 
sation, and  to  teaching;  but  teaching  is  only  a  form  of 
pursuing  one's  studies  and  summing  them  up. 

I 

Detailed  and  comprehensive  though  the  Talmudic 
studies  were,  nevertheless  the  student,  especially  if  he 
was  gifted,  completed  the  course  when  he  was  not  much 
more  than  twenty  years  of  age.  Rashi,  then,  was  proba- 
bly close  to  twenty-five  years  old  when  he  returned  from 
Mayence.  This  return  marks  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
rabbinical  literature.  From  that  time,  the  study  of  the 
Talmud  was  cultivated  not  alone  upon  the  banks  of  the 
Rhine,  but  also  in  Champagne,  which  came  to  rival  and 


54  KASHI 

soon  supplant  Lorraine,  and  having  freed  itself  from  the 
subjection  of  the  Ehenish  schools,  radiated  the  light  of 
science.  Jews  from  all  over  Christian  Europe  gathered 
there  to  bask  in  the  warmth  of  the  new  home  of  Jewish 
learning.  Less  than  ten  centuries  earlier,  the  same  thing 
had  happened  when  Rab  transplanted  the  teaching  of  the 
Law  from  Palestine  to  Babylonia,  and  founded  an 
academy  at  Sura,  which,  for  a  while  rivalling  the  Pales- 
tinian schools,  soon  eclipsed  them,  and  finally  became  the 
principal  centre  of  Jewish  science.  The  Kabbalist  was 
not  so  very  far  from  the  truth  when  he  believed  that  the 
soul  of  Eab  had  passed  into  the  body  of  Rashi. 

It  is  noteworthy  'that  this  upgrowth  of  Talmudic 
schools  in  Champagne  coincides  with  the  literary  move- 
ment then  beginning  in  Christian  France.  In  emerging 
from  the  barbarous  state  of  the  early  middle  ages,  it 
seems  that  the  same  breath  of  life  quickened  the  two 
worlds.  The  city  of  Troyes  played  an  especially  import- 
ant role  in  matters  intellectual  and  religious.  A  number 
of  large  councils  were  held  there,  and  the  ecclesiastical 
school  of  Troyes  enjoyed  a  brilliant  reputation,  having 
trained  scholars  such  as  Olbert,  Pierre  Comestor,  Pierre 
de  Celle,  and  William  of  the  White  Hands.  And  it  was 
near  Troyes  that  the  mighty  voices  of  Abelard  and  Saint 
Bernard  resounded. 

There  is  a  curious  reminder  of  Rashi's  sojourn  at 
Troyes.  As  late  as  1840  an  ancient  butcher  shop  was 
still  standing,  into  which,  it  was  remarked,  flies  never 
entered.  Jewish  tradition  has  it  that  the  shop  was  built 
on  the  spot  previously  occupied  by  Rashi's  dwelling — 
hence  its  miraculous  immunity.  The  same  legend  is 
found  among  the  Christians,  but  they  ascribe  the  free- 


AT  TEOYES  55 

dom  from  flies  to  the  protection  of  Saint  Loup,  the 
patron  saint  of  the  city,  who  himself  worked  the  miracle. 
Eashi  is  linked  with  Troyes  in  ways  more  natural  as 
well.  As  I  have  said,  certain  expressions  occur  in  his 
works  which  he  himself  says  refer  to  his  city.  Some 
scholars  have  even  stated  that  they  recognized  in  the 
language  he  used  the  dialect  of  Troyes,  a  variety  of  the 
speech  of  Champagne,  itself  a  French  patois. 

It  is  probable  that  Rashi — who  was  never  at  the  head 
of  the  Talmudic  schools  of  Worms  or  Prague,  as  the 
legends  go — exercised  the  functions  of  a  rabbi  at  Troyes, 
that  he  never  kept  himself  exclusively  within  the  confines 
of  his  school,  and  that  he  felt  it  his  duty  to  instruct  all 
his  fellow-Jews.  In  conjunction  with  his  intellectual 
endowments,  he  possessed  faith  and  charity,  the  true 
sources  of  strength  in  religious  leadership.  He  was  the 
natural  champion  of  the  weak,"  the  judge  and  super- 
visor of  all  acts.  He  pronounced  judgment  in  cases 
more  or  less  distantly  connected  with  religion,  that  is, 
in  nearly  all  cases  at  a  period  so  thoroughly  religious  in 
character.  Either  because  he  had  been  appointed  their 
rabbi  by  the  faithful,  or  because  he  enjoyed  great  pres- 
tige, Rashi  was  the  veritable  spiritual  chief  of  the  com- 
munity, and  even  exercised  influence  upon  the  surround- 
ing communities.  The  man  to  preside  over  the  religious 
affairs  of  the  Jews  was  chosen  not  so  much  for  his  birth 
and  breeding  as  for  his  scholarship  and  piety,  since  the 
rabbi  was  expected  to  distinguish  himself  both  in  learn- 
ing and  in  character.  "  He  who  is  learned,  gentle,  and 
modest/'  says  the  Talmud,  "  and  who  is  beloved  of  men, 
he  should  be  judge  in  his  city."  As  will  soon  be  made 
clear,  Rashi  fulfilled  this  ideal.  His  piety  and  amia- 


56  EASHI 

bility,  in  as  great  a  degree  as  his  learning,  won  for  him 
the  admiration  of  his  contemporaries  and  of  posterity. 
At  Troyes  there  was  no  room  for  another  at  the  head  of 
the  community. 

Like  most  of  the  rabbis  of  the  time,  Eashi  accepted  no 
compensation  from  the  community  for  his  services,  and 
he  probably  lived  from  what  he  earned  by  viticulture. 
Once  he  begs  a  correspondent  to  excuse  the  shortness  of 
his  letter,  because  he  and  his  family  were  busy  with  the 
vintage.  "All  the  Jews,"  he  said,  "  are  at  this  moment 
engaged  in  the  vineyards."  In  a  letter  to  his  son-in-law 
Mei'r,  he  gives  a  description  of  the  wine-presses  of  Troyes, 
in  the  installation  of  which  a  change  had  been  made. 
It  was  deemed  fitting  that  the  scholar  should  provide  for 
the  needs  of  his  family ;  the  law  in  fact  imposed  it  upon 
him  as  a  duty.  "Eeligious  study  not  accompanied  by 
work  of  the  hands  is  barren  and  leads  to  sin."  The 
functions  of  a  rabbi  were  purely  honorific  in  character, 
dignifying,  and  unrelated  in  kind  to  mercantile  goods, 
for  which  one  receives  pay.  It  was  forbidden  to  make  the 
law  a  means  of  earning  one's  living  or  a  title  to  glory. 
"  He  who  profits  by  his  studies  or  who  studies  for  his  own 
interest,  compromises  his  salvation." 

When  the  religious  representative  showed  such  devo- 
tion and  disinterestedness,  the  pious  willingly  submitted 
themselves  to  his  authority.  The  spiritual  heads  of  the 
communities  had  as  great  ascendency  over  believing  Jews 
as  a  king  had  over  his  subjects ;  they  were  sovereigns  in 
the  realm  of  the  spirit.  And  Eashi  in  his  time,  because 
of  his  learning  and  piety,  exercised  the  most  undisputed 
authority.  His  influence  though  not  so  great  was  com- 
parable, in  the  sphere  in  which  it  could  be  exercised, 


AT  TEOYES  57 

with  that  of  the  great  Saint  Bernard  upon  the  entire 
Christian  world,  or  with  that  of  Maimonides  upon  Juda- 
ism in  the  Arabic  countries. 

People  in  all  circumstances  and  from  all  the  sur- 
rounding countries  addressed  themselves  to  him;  and  to 
the  list  of  his  correspondents  in  Lorraine  may  be  added 
the  names  of  several  French  rabbis,  the  "  wise  men  "  of 
Auxerre,  the  scholar  Solomon  of  Tours,  whom  Rashi 
calls  his  dear  friend,  his  kinsman  Eleazar,  and  E. 
Aaron  the  Elder.  His  correspondence  on  learned 
questions  was  so  large  that  sometimes,  as  when  he  was 
ill,  for  instance,  he  would  have  his  disciples  or  relatives 
help  him  out  with  it." 

About  1070  Rashi  founded  a  school  at  Troyes,  which 
soon  became  the  centre  of  instruction  in  the  Talmud 
for  the  whole  region.  As  we  have  seen,  Gershom 
trained  a  number  of  disciples  who  directed  schools, 
each  of  which  pursued  a  particular  course.  Eashi 
united  these  various  tendencies,  as,  later,  his  work  put 
an  end  to  the  activity  of  the  commentators  of  the  Tal- 
mud. An  explanation  is  thus  afforded  of  the  legend 
repeated  by  Basnage  in  these  words :  "  He  made  a  col- 
lection of  the  difficulties  he  had  heard  decided  during 
his  travels.  On  his  return  to  Europe  he  went  to  all  the 
academies  and  disputed  with  the  professors  about  the 
questions  which  they  were  discussing;  then  he  threw  to 
the  floor  a  page  of  his  collections,  which  gave  a  solution 
of  the  problem,  and  so  ended  the  controversy,  without, 
however,  mentioning  the  name  of  the  author  of  the  de- 
cision. It  is  alleged  that  these  leaves  scattered  in 
thousands  of  places  were  gathered  together,  and  that 
from  them  was  composed  the  commentary  on  the  Tal- 


58  RASHI 

mud."  The  legend  attests  Rashi's  great  reputation. 
While  he  was  still  quite  young,  his  renown  had  rapidly 
spread. 

When  in  Lorraine,  he  had  from  time  to  time  paid  a 
visit  to  Troyes,  and  so,  later,  when  definitely  established 
in  Champagne,  he  maintained  relations  with  his  masters, 
especially  with  Isaac  ha-Levi,  whom  he  visited  and  with 
whom  he  corresponded  in  the  interim  of  his  visits. 
Isaac  ha-Levi  was  no  less  fond  of  his  favorite  pupil,  and 
he  inquired  of  travellers  about  him.  He  addressed  Re- 
sponsa  to  Rashi  on  questions  of  Talmudic  jurisprudence. 
In  fact,  Rashi  continued  to  solicit  advice  from  his 
teachers  and  keep  himself  informed  of  everything  con- 
cerning schools  and  Talmudic  instruction.  In  this  way 
he  once  learned  that  a  Talmudic  scholar  of  Rome,  R. 
Kalonymos  (ben  Sabbata'i,  born  before  1030)  had  come 
after  the  death  of  Jacob  ben  Yakar  to  establish  himself 
at  Worms,  where  he  died,  probably  a  martyr's  death, 
during  the  First  Crusade.  Kalonymos,  who  enjoyed  a 
great  reputation,  wrote  Talmudic  commentaries  and 
liturgical  poems.  His  was  a  personality  rare  in  that 
period. 

Rashi's  masters,  in  turn,  often  applied  to  their  pupil 
for  advice,  choosing  him  as  arbiter  and  consulting  him 
with  a  deference  more  fitting  toward  a  colleague  than 
a  disciple.  Isaac  ha-Levi  wrote  the  following  words, 
in  which  one  detects  real  esteem  and  admiration  under- 
lying epistolary  emphasis  and  the  usual  exaggeration  of 
a  compliment:  "Blessed  be  the  Lord  who  willed  that 
this  century  should  not  be  orphaned,  who  has  steadied 
our  tottering  generation  by  eminent  teachers,  such  as  my 
dear  and  respected  friend,  my  kinsman  R.  Solomon. 


AT  TEOYES  59 

May  Israel  boast  many  another  such  as  he ! "  Equally 
sincere  seems  the  salutation  of  a  letter  written  to  Eashi 
by  Isaac  ben  Judah :  "  To  him  who  is  beloved  in  heaven 
and  honored  on  earth,  who  possesses  the  treasures  of  the 
Law,  who  knows  how  to  resolve  the  most  subtle  and  pro- 
found questions,  whose  knowledge  moves  mountains 
and  shatters  rocks,  etc." 

After  the  death  of  Rashi's  teachers  (about  1075)  his 
school  assumed  even  more  importance.  It  eclipsed  the 
academies  of  Lorraine,  and  from  all  the  neighboring 
countries  it  attracted  pupils,  who  later  went  forth  and 
spread  the  teachings  of  their  master  abroad.  Rashi 
came  to  be  considered  almost  the  regenerator  of  Tal- 
mudic  studies,  and  in  the  following  generation  Eliezer 
ben  Nathan  said  with  pious  admiration :  "  His  lips  were 
the  seat  of  wisdom,  and  thanks  to  him  the  Law,  which 
he  examined  and  interpreted,  has  come  to  life  again." 

In  this  school,  justly  renowned  as  the  centre  of  Jewish 
science,  master  and  pupil  were  animated  by  equal  love 
for  their  work.  Entire  days  were  spent  there  in  study, 
and  often,  especially  in  winter,  entire  nights  as  well. 
The  studies  were  regulated  by  a  judicious  method.  The 
teacher  began  to  explain  a  treatise  of  the  Talmud  on  the 
first  of  the  month,  in  order  that  the  students  might  take 
their  measures  accordingly,  and  not  delay  coming  until 
after  the  treatise  had  been  begun.  The  pupils  took  notes 
dictated  by  the  teacher,  and  thus  composed  manuscripts 
which  are  still  of  great  value.  In  so  doing  they  fixed  all 
the  minutiae  of  a  detailed  process  of  argumentation.  On 
the  other  hand,  books  were  rare,  and  students  poor.  The 
master  himself,  in  order  to  facilitate  his  task,  wrote  ex- 
planations during  the  lesson,  and  these  served  as  text- 


60  EASHI 

books,  which,  like  the  students'  notebooks,  became  treas- 
ure houses  for  later  generations. 

Eashi  not  only  imparted  knowledge  to  his  pupils,  but 
received  knowledge  from  them  in  turn.  He  set  great 
store  by  their  observations.  His  grandson  Samuel  ben 
Mei'r  once  drew  his  attention  to  a  certain  form  of  Bibli- 
cal parallelism,  in  which  the  second  hemistich  completes 
the  first,  as  in  the  following  verse  from  Psalm  xciii: 

"The  floods  have  lifted  up,  O  Lord, 
The  floods  have  lifted  up  their  voice." 

After  this,  each  time  Eashi  came  across  a  similarly 
constructed  verse,  he  would  say  with  mock  gravity: 
"  Here's  a  verse  for  my  Samuel." 

The  Jewish  student  led  a  pure,  regulated  existence, 
with  only  wholesome  distractions,  such  as  the  little  cele- 
brations when  the  study  of  a  Talmudic  treatise  had  been 
completed.  His  greatest  pleasure  he  found  in  the  sword- 
play  of  mind  against  mind,  in  the  love  of  knowledge  and 
religion. 

Eashi  did  not  content  himself  with  giving  instruction 
only  to  students  under  his  immediate  influence.  He 
desired  that  his  teachings  should  not  be  lost  to  men 
unknown  to  him  and  to  unborn  generations.  He  realized 
that  everything  so  far  accomplished  in  the  field  of 
Talmudic  and  even  Biblical  exegesis  was  inadequate,  and 
he  therefore  undertook  the  works  that  were  to  occupy 
him  the  rest  of  his  life.  His  school  was,  so  to  speak,  the 
laboratory  of  which  his  Biblical  and  Talmudic  commen- 
taries were  the  products.  They  involved  a  vast  amount 
of  toil,  and  though  death  overtook  him  before  his  task 
was  accomplished,  he  doubtless  began  the  work  early  in 


AT  TROYES  61 

life."  A  legend  goes  that  he  -was  forbidden  to  write 
commentaries  on  the  Bible  before  he  was  a  hundred 
years  old.  Rashi  with  all  his  ardor  for  learning  could 
not  curb  himself  and  postpone  his  activity  for  so  long  a 
time,  and  he  turned  the  prohibition  in  his  own  favor  by 
explaining  that  the  sum  of  the  Hebrew  letters  forming 
the  word  "  hundred  "  amounted  to  forty-six. 

Rashi's  disciples  were  in  very  truth  his  sons,  for  no 
sons  were  born  to  the  illustrious  rabbi.  But  he  had 
three  daughters,  who  each  married  a  Talmudist,  so  that 
Rashi's  descendants,  no  less  than  himself,  were  the 
bearers  of  rabbinic  learning  in  France.  Rashi  did  not 
limit  his  association  with  his  pupils  to  the  school-house, 
but  invited  them  to  enter  his  family  circle.  Indeed,  this 
was  the  highest  honor  to  which  they  could  aspire.  It  has 
always  been  the  greatest  piece  of  good  fortune  for  a  Jew 
to  marry  the  daughter  of  a  learned  and  pious  man,  and 
the  suitors  most  desired  by  and  for  young  girls  were 
scholars.  In  this  way  arose  veritable  dynasties  of  rabbis, 
who  cherished  learning  as  a  heritage,  a  family  treasure, 
and  the  Rashi  "  dynasty  "  was  one  of  the  greatest  and 
most  renowned  among  them. 

Tradition  has  delighted  in  representing  Rashi's 
daughters  as  highly  endowed.  Unfortunately,  it  seems 
that  the  education  of  women  among  the  Jews  of  the 
middle  ages  was  greatly  neglected,  though  they  were 
taught  the  principles  of  religion  and  the  ordinances 
which  it  was  their  special  duty  to  fulfil.  They  possessed 
the  domestic  virtues,  and  above  all  modesty  and  charity. 
They  helped  their  husbands  in  business,  thus  enabling 
them  to  devote  themselves  more  freely  to  study,  and 
though  the  women  themselves  lacked  learning,  they  con- 
5 


62  EASHI 

cerned  themselves  with  the  learning  of  their  men-folk, 
and  were  eager  to  contribute  to  the  support  of  schools 
and  pupils.  They  were  extremely  pious,  often  scrupu- 
lously so.  The  women  in  a  family  of  scholars  had  suf- 
ficient knowledge  to  be  called  upon  in  ritual  questions, 
as,  for  instance,  Bellette,  sister  of  Isaac  ben  Menahem 
the  Great,  of  Orleans,  a  contemporary  of  Eashi,  who 
appealed  to  her  authority.  Other  cases  of  the  same  kind 
are  mentioned,  some  occurring  in  Eashi's  own  family, 
his  granddaughter  Miriam  having  been  asked  to  adjudi- 
cate a  doubtful  case.  One  of  Eashi's  daughters,  also 
called  Miriam,  married  the  scholar  Judah  ben  Nathan. 
Eachel,  another  daughter,  given  a  French  epithet, 
Bellassez,24  also  seems  to  have  been  learned.  Her  union 
with  a  certain  Eliezer,  or  Jocelyn,  was  unhappy.  Not  so 
the  marriage  of  the  third  daughter  of  Eashi,  Jochebed, 
whose  husband  was  the  scholar  Meir,  son  of  Samuel,  of 
Eameru,  a  little  village  near  Troyes.  She  had  four 
sons,  named  Samuel,  Jacob,  Isaac,  and  Solomon.  The 
three  first,  and  in  a  less  degree  the  fourth,  too,  continued 
in  glorious  wise  the  traditions  of  their  grandfather.  I 
shall  have  occasion  again  to  mention  them,  their  life, 
and  their  work. 

The  renown  of  his  posterity,  far  from  dimming 
Eashi's  brilliance,  only  added  fresh  lustre  to  the  name 
of  him  who  was  both  father  and  revered  master.  Even 
in  his  life-time  Eashi  could  reap  the  harvest  of  his  ef- 
forts, and  though  death  intervened  before  his  work  was 
completed,  he  saw  at  his  side  collaborators  ready  to  con- 
tinue what  he  had  begun. 

A  marriage  among  the  Jews  of  France  of  that  epoch 
must  have  been  a  charming  and  touching  ceremony,  to 


AT  TEOYES  63 

judge  from  a  picturesque  description,  given  by  an 
author  of  the  fourteenth  century,  of  a  wedding  at  May- 
ence,  a  city  in  which  the  community  had  preserved 
ancient  customs. 

Several  days  before  the  ceremony  the  beadle  invited 
all  the  faithful;  for  it  was  a  public  festival,  and  every- 
body was  supposed  to  share  in  the  joy  of  the  bride  and 
bridegroom.  On  the  day  of  the  wedding,  the  bride- 
groom, attended  by  the  rabbi  and  men  of  standing  in  the 
community  and  followed  by  other  members  of  the  con- 
gregation, proceeded  to  the  synagogue  to  the  accom- 
paniment of  music.  At  the  synagogue  he  was  awaited 
by  the  bride,  who  was  surrounded  by  her  maids  of  honor 
and  by  a  number  of  women.  The  rabbi  presented  the 
3'oung  girl  to  the  bridegroom,  and  he  took  her  hand, 
while  the  by-standers  showered  grains  of  wheat  upon 
them  and  small  pieces  of  money,  which  were  picked  up 
by  the  poor.  Then,  hand  in  hand,  the  couple  walked  to 
the  door  of  the  synagogue,  where  they  paused  a  while. 
After  this  the  bride  was  led  to  her  own  home  so  that  she 
might  complete  her  toilet.  Under  a  large  mantle  of  silk 
and  fur,  with  puffed  sleeves,  she  wore  a  white  robe,  sym- 
bol of  the  mourning  for  Zion,  the  memory  of  which  was 
not  to  leave  her  even  on  this  day  of  joy.  The  sign  of 
mourning  adopted  for  the  bridegroom  was  a  special 
headgear. 

After  the  bridegroom  had  returned  to  the  synagogue 
and  placed  himself  near  the  Ark  of  the  Law,  the  morning 
service  was  held.  Meanwhile  the  bride  was  led  to  the 
door  of  the  synagogue,  always  to  the  accompaniment  of 
music,  and  the  bridegroom,  conducted  by  the  rabbi  and 
the  heads  of  the  community,  went  to  receive  her  there. 


64  EASHI 

He  placed  himself  on  her  left,  and  preceded  by  his 
mother  and  the  mother  of  the  bride,  he  guided  her  to  the 
pulpit  in  the  centre  of  the  synagogue.  Here  was  pro- 
nounced the  nuptial  benediction. 

The  ceremony  over,  the  husband  hastened  to  his  home 
to  meet  his  wife  and  introduce  her  to  the  dwelling  of 
which  she  was  to  be  the  mistress.  Here  it  was  that  the 
wedding  feast  was  spread.  Festivities  continued  for 
several  days,  and  the  following  Saturday  special  hymns 
were  inserted  in  the  service  in  honor  of  the  newly- 
wedded  couple,28  No  parade  or  pomp  marred  the  beauty 
and  grace  of  this  ceremony,  every  act  of  which  bespoke 
pure  poetry  and  religion. 

From  this  it  is  evident  how  much  domestic  virtues 
were  prized  among  the  Jews  of  the  middle  ages.  The 
family  was  expected  to  be  a  model  of  union  and  harmony, 
of  tenderness  of  mate  toward  mate  and  parents  toward 
children.  Gentleness  and  a  spirit  of  trust  were  to  pre- 
side over  the  household.  Eashi,  as  we  shall  see,28  speaks 
in  moving  terms  of  the  high  regard  which  a  man  owes 
his  wife. 

II 

But  it  was  not  given  to  Eashi  to  pass  untroubled 
through  his  fruitful  life  of  study.  A  terrible  shock 
surprised  him.  The  eleventh  century  set  in  a  sea  cf 
blood. 

Some  legends  have  a  hardy  life.  Noi  the  least  re- 
markable of  these  is  the  myth  that  the  Crusades  were 
wholly  inspired  by  religious  zeal.  These  great  European 
movements  are  always  represented  as  having  been  called 
forth  by  enthusiasm  and  thirst  for  self-sacrifice.  A 


AT  TEOYES  65 

great  wave  of  faith,  we  are  told,  swept  over  the  masses, 
and  carried  them  on  to  the  conquest  of  the  Holy  Sepul- 
chre. There  is  another  side  to  the  shield — faith  fawning 
on  political  expediency  and  egoism,  and  turning  brigand. 
Without  doubt  many  Christians  went  on  the  Crusades 
impelled  by  religious  conviction.  But  how  many  nour- 
ished less  vague  ideas  in  their  hearts?  Not  to  men- 
tion those  whose  only  aim  was  to  escape  from  the  conse- 
quences of  their  misdeeds  and  obtain  absolution  and 
indulgences,  not  to  mention  those  who  were  animated 
by  a  foolish  sense  of  chivalry,  by  love  of  adventure,  of 
perilous  risks,  drawn  by  the  attraction  of  the  unknown 
and  the  marvellous — apart  from  these,  there  was  the 
great  mass,  impelled  by  greed  and  thirst  for  pillage. 

Complaisant  historians  express  their  admiring  wonder 
at  these  "hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  fighting  with 
their  eyes  doggedly  fixed  upon  the  Holy  Sepulchre  and 
dying  in  order  to  conquer  it."  They  pity  these  "  multi- 
tudes of  men  who  threw  themselves  on  Islam  the 
unknown,  these  naive,  trusting  spirits,  who  each  day 
imagined  themselves  at  Jerusalem,  and  died  on  the  road 
thither."  Would  it  not  be  well  for  them  to  reserve  a 
little  of  their  admiration  and  pity  for  the  unfortunates 
that  were  the  victims  of  these  "naive"  multitudes? 
Ought  they  not  to  say  that  this  religious  fervor  was  a 
mixture  chiefly  of  blind  hate  and  bloody  fanaticism? 
After  a  victory  the  Crusaders  would  massacre  the  popu- 
lations of  the  conquered  cities,  including  in  the  slaughter 
not  only  the  Mohammedans  but  also  the  Oriental  Chris- 
tians. Then  why  should  we  wonder  if  on  the  road  to 
Palestine  they  laid  violent  hands  on  the  Jews  they  found 
by  the  way  ?  " 


66  EASHI 

It  is  known  what  an  important  part  France  played  in 
the  First  Crusade.  From  France  issued  the  spark  that 
set  the  entire  Occident  aflame,  and  France  furnished 
the  largest  contingent  to  the  Crusades. 

However,  the  disorders  in  France  were  merely  local. 
If  the  rage  for  blood  enkindled  by  the  First  Crusade 
scarcely  affected  the  Jews  of  France,  it  is  because  the 
population  was  concentrated  on  the  banks  of  the  Khine. 
But  here  its  murderous  frenzy  knew  no  bounds.  The 
people  threw  themselves  on  the  Jewish  communities  of 
Treves,  Speyer,  Worms,  Mayence,  and  Cologne,  and  put 
to  death  all  who  refused  to  be  converted  (May  to  July, 
1096).  The  noise  of  events  such  as  these  perforce 
"  found  a  path  through  the  sad  hearts  "  of  the  Jews  of 
Champagne;  for  they  maintained  lively  and  cordial 
relations  with  their  brethren  in  the  Rhine  lands,  many 
being  bound  to  them  by  ties  of  kinship.  Among  the 
martyrs  of  1096  was  Asher  ha-Levi,  who  was  the  dis- 
ciple of  Isaac  ben  Eleazar,  Eashi's  second  teacher,  and 
who  died  together  with  his  mother,  his  two  brothers,  and 
their  families.  From  a  Hebrew  text  we  learn  that  the 
Jews  of  France  ordered  a  fast  and  prayers  in  commemo- 
ration of  these  awful  massacres,  the  victims  of  which 
numbered  not  less  than  ten  thousand. 

But  all  could  not  sacrifice  their  lives  for  the  sake  of 
their  faith.  Though  so  large  a  number  were  slain  by 
the  pious  hordes  or  slew  one  another  in  order  to  escape 
violence,  others  allowed  themselves  to  be  baptized,  or 
adopted  Christianity,  in  appearance  at  least.  After  the 
Crusaders  were  at  a  distance,  on  the  way  to  their  death 
in  the  Orient,  the  Jews  left  behind  could  again  breathe 
freely.  Of  many  of  them,  Gregory  of  Tours  might  have 


AT  TEOYES  67 

said  that  "  the  holy  water  had  washed  their  bodies  but 
not  their  hearts,  and,  liars  toward  God,  they  returned  to 
their  original  heresy."  The  emperor  of  Germany, 
Henry  IV,  it  seems,  even  authorized  those  who  had  been 
forced  into  baptism  to  return  to  Judaism,  and  the 
baptized  Jews  hastened  to  throw  off  the  hateful  mask. 
This  benevolent  measure  irritated  the  Christian  clergy, 
and  the  Pope  bitterly  reproached  the  Emperor. 

What  sadder,  more  curious  spectacle  than  that  which 
followed?  Many  of  those  Jews  who  had  remained 
faithful  to  their  religion  would  not  consider  the  apos- 
tates as  their  brethren,  unwilling  apostates  though  they 
had  been,  and  strenuously  opposed  their  re-admission  to 
the  Synagogue. 

This  unwillingness  to  compound,  showing  so  little 
generosity  and  charity,  must  have  distressed  Eashi  pro- 
foundly. For,  when  consulted  in  regard  to  the  repulsed 
converts,  he  displayed  a  loftiness  of  view  and  a  breadth 
of  tolerance  which  Maimonides  himself  could  not 
equal.  In  similar  circumstances  Maimonides,  it 
seems,  in  intervening,  yielded  a  little  to  personal  pre- 
possession. "  Let  us  beware,"  wrote  Eashi,  "  let  us  be- 
ware of  alienating  those  who  have  returned  to  us  by  re- 
pulsing them.  They  became  Christians  only  through 
fear  of  death;  and  as  soon  as  the  danger  disappeared, 
they  hastened  to  return  to  their  faith." 

Though  the  First  Crusade  affected  the  Jews  of  France 
only  indirectly,  it  none  the  less  marks  a  definite  epoch 
in  their  history.  The  fanaticism  it  engendered  wreaked 
its  fury  upon  the  Jews,  against  whom  all  sorts  of  odious 
charges  were  brought.  They  were  placed  in  the  same 
category  as  sorcerers  and  lepers,  and  among  the  crimes 


68  EASHI 

laid  at  their  door  were  ritual  murder  and  piercing  of  the 
host.  The  instigations  of  the  clergy  did  not  remain 
without  effect  upon  a  people  lulled  to  sleep  by  its  igno- 
rance, but  aroused  to  action  by  its  faith.  The  kings  and 
seigneurs  on  their  side  exploited  the  Jews,  and  expelled 
them  from  their  territories. 

Eashi  had  the  good  fortune  not  to  know  these  troub- 
lous times.  But  he  discerned  in  a  sky  already  overcast 
the  threatening  premonitions  of  a  tempest,  and  as 
though  to  guard  his  fellow-Jews  against  the  danger, 
he  left  them  a  work  which  was  to  be  a  viaticum  and 
an  asylum  to  them.  When  one  sees  how  Eashi's  work 
brought  nourishment,  so  to  speak,  to  all  later  Jewish 
literature,  which  was  a  large  factor  in  keeping  Israel 
from  its  threatened  ruin,  one  is  convinced  that  Eashi, 
aside  from  his  literary  efforts,  contributed  no  slight 
amount  toward  the  preservation  and  the  vitality  of  the 
Jewish  people. 

Even  if  the  Crusades  had  not  involved  persecution  of 
the  Jews  and  so  provoked  the  noble  intervention  of 
Eashi,  they  would  nevertheless  have  made  themselves 
felt  in  Champagne.  Count  Hugo,  among  others,  re- 
mained in  the  Holy  Land  from  1104  to  1108;  and  his 
brother  was  killed  at  Eamleh  in  1102.  According  to 
a  rather  wide-spread  legend,  Eashi  stood  in  intimate 
relations  with  one  of  the  principal  chiefs  of  the  Crusade, 
the  famous  duke  of  Lower  Lotharingia,  Godfrey  of 
Bouillon.  Historians  have  found  that  the  part  actually 
played  by  the  duke  in  the  Crusades  is  smaller  than  that 
ascribed  to  him  by  tradition,  yet  the  profound  impres- 
sion he  made  on  the  popular  imagination  has  remained, 
and  legend  soon  endowed  him  with  a  fabulous  gene- 


AT  TEOYES  69 

alogy,  making  of  him  an  almost  mythical  personage. 
A  favorite  trick  of  the  makers  of  legends  is  to  connect 
their  heroes  with  celebrated  contemporaries,  as  though 
brilliance  was  reflected  from  one  upon  the  other.  Thus 
Saladin  was  connected  with  Maimonides  and  with 
Kichard  the  Lion-Hearted,  and,  similarly,  Eashi  with 
Godfrey  of  Bouillon. 

The  story  goes  that  Godfrey,  having  heard  rumors  of 
the  knowledge  and  wisdom  of  the  rabbi  of  Troyes, 
summoned  Eashi  to  his  presence  to  consult  with  him 
upon  the  issue  of  his  undertaking.  Eashi  refused  to 
appear.  Annoyed,  Godfrey  accompanied  by  his  cavaliers 
went  to  the  rabbi's  school.  He  found  the  door  open,  but 
the  great  building  empty.  By  the  strength  of  his  magic 
Eashi  had  made  himself  invisible,  but  he  himself  could 
see  everything.  "  Where  art  thou,  Solomon  ?  "  cried  the 
cavalier,  "  Here  I  am,"  a  voice  answered ;  "  what  does 
my  lord  demand  ?  "  Godfrey  not  seeing  a  living  soul 
repeated  his  question,  and  always  received  the  same 
answer.  But  not  a  man  to  be  seen!  Utterly  con- 
founded, he  left  the  building  and  met  a  disciple  of 
Eashi's.  "  Go  tell  thy  master/'  he  said,  "  that  he  should 
appear ;  I  swear  he  has  nothing  to  fear  from  me."  The 
rabbi  then  revealed  himself.28  "I  see,"  Godfrey  said 
to  him,  "that  thy  wisdom  is  great.  I  should  like  to 
know  whether  I  shall  return  from  my  expedition  victor- 
ious, or  whether  I  shall  succumb.  Speak  without  fear." 

"  Thou  wilt  take  the  Holy  City,"  Eashi  replied,  "  and 
thou  wilt  reign  over  Jerusalem  three  days,  but  on  the 
fourth  day  the  Moslem  will  put  thee  to  flight,  and  when 
thou  returnest  only  three  horses  will  be  left  to  thee." 


70  EASHI 

"  It  may  be,"  replied  Godfrey,  irritated  and  disil- 
lusioned in  seeing  his  future  pictured  in  colors  so 
sombre.  "  But  if  I  return  with  only  one  more  horse  than 
thou  sayest,  I  shall  wreak  frightful  vengeance  upon  thee. 
I  shall  throw  thy  body  to  the  dogs,  and  I  shall  put  to 
death  all  the  Jews  of  France." 

After  several  years  of  fighting  Godfrey  of  Bouillon, 
ephemeral  king  of  Jerusalem,  took  his  homeward  road 
back  to  France,  accompanied  by  three  cavaliers,  in  all, 
then,  four  horses,  one  more  than  Eashi  had  predicted. 
Godfrey  remembered  the  rabbi's  prophecy,  and  deter- 
mined to  carry  out  his  threat.  But  when  he  entered  the 
city  of  Troyes,  a  large  rock,  loosened  from  the  gate,  fell 
upon  one  of  the  riders,  killing  him  and  his  horse.  Amazed 
at  the  miracle,  the  duke  perforce  had  to  recognize  that 
Eashi  had  not  been  wrong,  and  he  wanted  to  go  to  the 
seer  to  render  him  homage,  but  he  learned  that  Eashi 
had  died  meanwhile.  This  grieved  him  greatly. 

This  legend  was  further  embellished  by  the  addition 
of  details.  Some  placed  the  scene  at  Worms;  others 
asserted  that  the  duke  asked  Eashi  to  accompany  him  to 
Lorraine;  but  Eashi  nobly  refused,  as  Maimonides  did 
later.  All  forgot  that  Godfrey  of  Bouillon  after  he  left 
for  the  Crusades  never  saw  his  fatherland  again,  but 
died  at  Jerusalem,  five  years  before  Eashi. 

Eashi's  life  offers  no  more  noteworthy  events.  He 
passed  the  balance  of  his  days  in  study,  in  guiding  the 
community,  and  in  composing  his  works.  Without 
doubt,  our  lack  of  information  concerning  his  last  years 
is  due  to  this  very  fact — to  the  peace  and  calm  in  which 
that  time  was  spent. 


AT  TEOYES  71 

A  naive  legend  has  it  that  he  wanted  to  know  who 
would  be  his  companion  in  Paradise.  He  learned  in  a 
dream  that  the  man  lived  at  Barcelona,  and  was  called 
Abraham  the  Just.  In  order  to  become  acquainted  with 
him  while  still  on  earth,  Eashi,  despite  his  great  age, 
started  forth  on  a  journey  to  Barcelona.  There  he  found 
a  very  rich  man,  but,  as  was  alleged,  he  was  also  very 
impious.  However,  Eashi  was  not  long  in  discovering 
that  for  all  his  life  of  luxury  he  was  just  and  generous 
of  spirit.  Eashi  even  composed  a  work  in  his  honor 
entitled  "  The  Amphitryon,"  in  Hebrew,  Ha-Parnes. 
Do  you  think  the  work  was  lost?  Not  a  bit  of  it.  It 
still  exists,  but  it  is  called  Ha-Pardes.  The  legend  is 
based  upon  a  copyist's  mistake.  However,  it  is  found  in 
different  forms  in  other  literatures. 

Beyond  a  doubt  Eashi  died  and  was  buried  in  his 
birthplace.  Nevertheless  the  story  is  told,  that  as  he  was 
about  to  return  to  France  with  his  young  wife,  the 
daughter  of  his  host  at  Prague,  after  his  long  trip  of 
study  and  exploration,  which  I  have  already  described, 
an  unknown  man  entered  his  dwelling  and  struck  him  a 
mortal  blow.  But  the  people  could  not  resign  them- 
selves to  accept  so  miserable  an  end  for  so  illustrious  a 
man,  and  the  legend  received  an  addition.  At  the  very 
moment  Eashi  was  to  be  buried,  his  wife  ran  up  and 
brought  him  back  to  life  by  means  of  a  philtre.  His 
father-in-law,  in  order  not  to  excite  the  envy  of  his 
enemies,  kept  the  happy  event  a  secret,  and  ordered  the 
funeral  to  be  held.  The  coffin  was  carried  with  great 
pomp  to  the  grave,  which  became  an  object  of  veneration 
for  the  Jews  of  Prague.  In  fact,  a  tomb  is  pointed  out 
as  being  that  of  the  celebrated  rabbi,  and,  as  the  inscrip- 


72  EASHI 

tion  is  effaced,  the  assertion  can  safely  be  made  that 
Rashi  died  in  the  capital  of  Bohemia. 

Eashi's  death  was  less  touching  and  less  tragic.  We 
learn  from  a  manuscript  dated  Thursday,  the  twenty- 
ninth  of  Tammuz,  in  the  year  4865  of  the  Creation 
(July  13,  1105),  that  Eashi  died  at  Troyes.  He  was 
then  sixty-five  years  of  age. 

It  is  as  though  the  echo  of  the  regrets  caused  by 
Eashi's  death  resounded  in  the  following  note  in  an  old 
manuscript :  "  As  the  owner  of  a  fig-tree  knows  when  it 
is  time  to  cull  the  figs,  so  God  knew  the  appointed  time 
of  Eashi,  and  carried  him  away  in  his  hour  to  let  him 
enter  heaven.  Alas !  he  is  no  more,  for  God  has  taken 
him."  These  few  lines,  without  doubt  the  note  of  some 
copyist,  show  with  what  deep  respect  the  memory  of 
Eashi  came  to  be  cherished  but  shortly  after  his  death. 
Like  Eabbenu  Gershom  he  was  awarded  after  his  death 
the  title  of  "Light  of  the  Captivity."  But  later  the 
title  was  applied  only  to  Gershom,  as  though  Eashi  had 
no  need  of  it  to  distinguish  him. 

Eashi  died  "  full  of  days,"  having  led  a  life  of  few 
incidents,  because  it  was  uniformly  devoted  to  study 
and  labor.  He  was  like  a  patriarch  who  is  surrounded 
by  the  affection  of  his  children  and  by  the  respect  of  his 
contemporaries.  To  future  generations  he  bequeathed 
the  memory  of  his  virtues  and  the  greatness  of  his  work. 
And  his  memory  has  survived  the  neglect  of  time  and 
the  ingratitude  of  man.  Posterity  has  enveloped  his 
brow  with  a  halo  of  glory,  and  after  the  lapse  of  eight 
centuries  the  radiance  of  his  personality  remains  un- 
diminished. 


CHAPTER  IV 
CHARACTER  AND  LEARNING  or  EASHI 

Not  only  is  there  little  information  concerning  the 
incidents  of  Eashi's  life,  but  also  there  are  only  a  few 
sources  from  which  we  can  learn  about  his  mental  make- 
up and  introduce  ourselves,  so  to  speak,  into  the  circle  of 
his  thoughts  and  ideas.  Generally  one  must  seek  the 
man  in  his  work.  But  into  writings  so  objective  as  those 
of  a  commentator  who  does  not  even  exert  himself  to  set 
forth  his  method  and  principles  in  a  preface,  a  man  is 
not  apt  to  put  much  of  his  own  personality.  More- 
over, Eashi  was  disposed  to  speak  of  himself  as  little  as 
possible.  From  time  to  time,  however,  he  lets  a  confi- 
dence escape,  and  we  treasure  it  the  more  carefully  be- 
cause of  its  rarity. 

Fortunately  we  can  get  to  know  hini  a  little  better 
through  his  letters,  that  is,  through  the  Eesponsa 
addressed  by  him  to  those  who  consulted  him  upon 
questions  of  religious  law.  Another  source,  no  less 
precious,  is  afforded  by  the  works  of  his  pupils,  who 
noted  with  pious  care  the  least  acts  or  expressions  of 
their  master  that  were  concerned  with  points  of  law. 

I  shall  endeavor  to  sum  up  all  this  information,  so 
that  we  may  get  a  picture  of  the  man  and  trace  his 
features  in  as  distinct  lines  as  possible. 


74  EASHI 


Needless  to  say,  Eashi's  conduct  was  always  honorable 
and  his  manners  irreproachable.  To  be  virtuous  was  not 
to  possess  some  special  merit ;  it  was  the  strict  fulfilment 
of  the  Law.  We  have  seen  that  Eashi's  life  was  pure; 
and  his  life  and  more  particularly  his  work  reveal  a  firm, 
controlled  nature,  a  simple,  frank  character,  clear  judg- 
ment, upright  intentions,  penetrating  intelligence,  and 
profound  good  sense.  The  Talmudic  maxim  might  he 
applied  to  him :  "  Study  demands  a  mind  as  serene  as  a 
sky  without  clouds."  His  was  a  questioning  spirit,  ever 
alert.  He  had  the  special  gift  of  viewing  the  outer  world 
intelligently  and  fixing  his  attention  upon  the  particular 
object  or  the  particular  circumstance  that  might  throw 
light  upon  a  fact  or  a  text.  For  instance,  although  he 
did  not  know  Arabic,  he  remembered  certain  groups  of 
related  words  in  the  language,  which  had  either  been 
called  to  his  attention. or  which  he  had  met  with  in 
reading.  He  noticed  of  his  own  accord  that  "Arabic 
words  begin  with  '  al '."  To  give  another  example  of 
this  discernment:  he  explains  a  passage  of  the  Talmud 
by  recalling  that  he  saw  Jews  from  Palestine  beating 
time  to  mark  the  melody  when  they  were  reading  the 
Pentateuch. 

The  clearness  and  poise  of  Eashi's  intellect — qualities 
which  he  possessed  in  common  with  other  French  rabbis, 
though  in  a  higher  degree — stand  in  favorable  contrast 
with  the  sickly  symbolism,  the  unwholesome  search  for 
mystery,  which  tormented  the  souls  of  ecclesiastics,  from 
the  monk  Eaoul  Glaber  up  to  the  great  Saint  Bernard, 
that  man,  said  Michelet,  "  diseased  by  the  love  of  God." 


CHAEACTEE  AND  LEAENING  75 

Yet  the  Jews  of  Northern  France  were  not,  as  one 
might  suppose  from  their  literature,  cold  and  dry  of 
temperament.  They  were  sensitive  and  tender-hearted. 
They  did  not  forever  lead  the  austere  life  of  scholarly 
seclusion ;  they  did  not  ignore  the  affections  nor  the  cares 
of  family;  they  knew  how  to  look  upon  life  and  its  daily 
come  and  go. 

But  they  did  not  go  to  the  other  extreme  and  become 
philosophers.  Traditional  religion  was  to  them  the 
entire  truth.  They  never  dreamed  that  antagonism 
might  arise  between  faith  and  reason.  From  a  theolo- 
gical point  of  view — if  the  modern  term  may  be  employed 
— Eashi  shared  the  ideas  of  his  time.  In  knowledge  or 
character  one  may  raise  oneself  above  one's  contempo- 
raries; but  it  is  rare  not  to  share  their  beliefs  and 
superstitions.  Now,  it  must  be  admitted,  the  Jews  of 
Northern  France  did  not  cherish  religion  in  all  its  ideal 
purity.  The  effect  of  their  faith,  their  piety,  upon  these 
simple  souls  was  to  make  them  somewhat  childish,  and 
give  their  practices  a  somewhat  superstitious  tinge. 
Thus,  Eashi  says  in  the  name  of  his  teacher  Jacob  ben 
Yakar,  that  one  should  smell  spices  Saturday  evening, 
because  hell,  after  having  its  work  interrupted  by  the 
Sabbath,  begins  to  exhale  a  bad  odor  again  in  the 
evening.  This  naive  faith  at  least  preserved  Eashi  from 
pursuing  the  paths  not  always  avoided  by  his  co-religion- 
ists of  Spain  and  the  Provence,  who  dabbled  in  philos- 
ophy. Eashi  never  was  conscious  of  the  need  to  justify 
certain  narratives  or  certain  beliefs  which  shocked  some 
readers  of  the  Bible.  Not  until  he  came  upon  a  passage 
in  the  Talmud  which  awakened  his  doubts  did  he  feel 
called  upon  to  explain  why  God  created  humanity, 


76  EASHI 

though  He  knew  it  would  become  corrupt,  and  why  He 
asks  for  information  concerning  things  which  cannot 
escape  His  omniscience.  But  Eashi  was  not  bewildered 
by  certain  anthropomorphic  passages  in  the  Bible,  the 
meaning  of  which  so  early  a  work  as  the  Targum  had 
veiled.  NOT  was  he  shocked  by  the  fact  that  God  let 
other  peoples  adore  the  stars,  and  that  altars  had  been 
consecrated  to  Him  elsewhere  than  at  Jerusalem. 
Thus  his  plain  common  sense  kept  him  from  wandering 
along  by-paths  and  losing  himself  in  the  subtleties  in 
which  the  Ibn  Ezras  and  the  Nahmanides  were  en- 
tangled. His  common  sense  rendered  him  the  same 
service  in  the  interpretation  of  many  a  Talmudic  pas- 
sage that  Saadia  and  Nissim  had  thought  incapable  of 
explanation  unless  wrested  from  its  literal  meaning. 
Since  justice  requires  the  admission,  I  shall  presently 
dwell  upon  the  points  in  which  Eashi's  lack  of  philoso- 
phic training  was  injurious  to  him.  Here  it  is  necessary 
merely  to  note  wherein  it  was  useful  to  him.  It  was  not 
he,  for  instance,  who  held  Abraham  and  Moses  to  have 
been  the  precursors — no,  the  disciples — of  Aristotle. 
Ought  we  to  complain  of  that  ? 

In  discussing  the  fundamental  goodness  of  Eashi's 
nature,  no  reserves  nor  qualifications  need  be  made. 
Historians  have  vied  with  one  another  in  praising  his 
humanity,  his  kindliness,  his  indulgent,  charitable 
spirit,  his  sweetness,  and  his  benevolence.  He  appealed 
to  the  spirit  of  concord,  and  exhorted  the  communities 
to  live  in  peace  with  one  another.  His  goodness  appears 
in  the  following  Eesponsum  to  a  question,  which  the 
interrogator  did  not  sign :  "  I  recognized  the  author  of 
the  letter  by  the  writing.  He  feared  to  sign  his  name, 


CHAEACTER  AND  LEARNING  77 

because  he  suspects  me  of  being  hostile  to  him.  But  I 
assure  him  I  am  not;  I  have  quite  the  contrary  feeling 
for  him."  A  still  quainter  characteristic  is  illustrated 
by  the  following  decision  which  he  rendered :  "  If, 
during  the  prayer  after  a  meal,  one  interrupts  oneself  to 
feed  an  animal,  one  does  not  commit  a  reprehensible  act, 
for  one  should  feed  one's  beasts  before  taking  nourish- 
ment, as  it  is  written :  '  And  I  will  send  grass  in  thy 
fields  for  thy  cattle,  that  thou  mayest  eat  and  be  full/  " 
But  the  quality  Rashi  possessed  in  the  highest  degree 
was  simplicity,  modesty,  one  may  almost  say,  humility; 
and  what  contributed  not  a  little  to  the  even  tenor  of  his 
existence  was  his  capacity  for  self-effacement. 

Such  was  his  nature  even  when  a  youth  in  the  acade- 
mies of  Lorraine.  He  himself  tells  how  once,  when  he 
was  in  the  house  of  his  teacher,  he  noticed  that  a  ritual 
prescription  was  being  violated  in  dressing  the  meat  of 
a  sheep.  His  teacher,  occupied  with  other  matters,  did 
not  notice  the  infringement  of  the  law,  and  the  pupil 
was  in  a  quandary.  To  keep  quiet  was  to  cover  up  the 
wrong  and  make  it  irreparable;  to  speak  and  pronounce 
a  decision  before  his  master  was  to  be  lacking  in  respect 
for  him.  So,  to  escape  from  the  embarrassing  situation, 
Rashi  put  a  question  to  his  master  bearing  upon  the 
dressing  of  the  meat. 

Toward  all  his  teachers  Rashi  professed  the  greatest 
respect.  On  a  certain  question  they  held  wrong  opinions, 
and  Rashi  wrote :  "  I  am  sure  they  did  not  cause  irre- 
mediable harm,  but  they  will  do  well  in  the  future  to 
abstain  from  such  action."  This  shows  at  the  same  time 
that  Rashi  did  not  hesitate  to  be  independent,  did  not 
blindly  accept  all  their  teachings.  When  he  believed  an 
6 


78  EASHI 

opinion  wrong,  lie  combated  it;  when  he  believed  an 
opinion  right,  he  upheld  it,  even  against  his  masters. 
On  one  occasion,  Isaac  ha-Levi  delivered  a  sentence 
which  to  his  pupil  seemed  too  strict.  "  I  plied  him  with 
questions,"  says  Eashi,  "to  which  he  would  not  pay 
attention,  although  he  could  not  give  any  proof  in 
support  of  his  opinion."  To  the  pupils  of  Isaac,  he 
wrote :  "  I  do  not  pretend  to  abolish  the  usages  that  you 
follow,  but  as  soon  as  I  can  be  with  you,  I  shall  ask 
you  to  come  over  to  my  opinion.  I  do  not  wish  to 
discuss  the  stricter  practices  adopted  in  the  school  of 
Jacob  ben  Yakar  (Isaac's  predecessor),  until  I  shall 
have  established  that  my  idea  is  the  correct  one.  He 
will  then  acknowledge  that  I  am  right,  as  he  did  once 
before." 

This  is  the  circumstance  referred  to.  While  still  a 
pupil  of  Isaac  ha-Levi,  Eashi  had  accepted  a  decision  of 
his  without  having  thoroughly  studied  it.  Later  he 
became  convinced  that  his  teacher  was  mistaken,  but  he 
bore  it  in  mind  until  he  went  to  Worms  and  persuaded 
his  teacher  to  his  own  belief. 

Eashi  displayed  the  same  reserve  in  the  exercise  of 
his  rabbinical  functions,  especially  when  the  community 
appealing  to  him  was  not  that  of  Troyes.  That  of 
Chalons-sur-Saone  once  consulted  him  concerning  an 
interdiction  imposed  by  E.  Gershom,  and  asked  him  to 
repeal  it;  but  Eashi  modestly  declined  to  give  an 
opinion.29 

Eashi's  modesty  is  also  illustrated  by  the  tone  of  his 
correspondence.  Deferential  or  indulgent,  he  never 
adopted  a  superior  manner,  was  never  positive  or  dog- 
matic. When  his  correspondents  were  wrong,  he  sought 


CHAKACTER  AND  LEARNING     79 

to  justify  their  mistakes;  when  he  combated  the  expla- 
nation of  another,  he  never  used  a  cutting  expression, 
or  a  spiteful  allusion,  as  Ibn  Ezra  did,  and  so  many 
others. 

Finally,  it  seems,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  recognize  his 
own  mistakes,  even  when  a  pupil  pointed  them  out  to 
him,  and  it  is  possible  to  select  from  his  commentaries  a 
number  of  avowals  of  error.  In  his  Responsa  he  wrote : 
"  The  same  question  has  already  been  put  to  me,  and  I 
gave  a  faulty  answer.  But  now  I  am  convinced  of  my 
mistake,  and  I  am  prepared  to  give  a  decision  better 
based  on  reason.  I  am  grateful  to  you  for  having  drawn 
my  attention  to  the  question;  thanks  to  you,  I  now  see 
the  truth."  This  question  concerned  a  point  in  Tal- 
mudic  law ;  but  he  was  willing  to  make  a  similar  admis- 
sion in  regard  to  the  explanation  of  a  Biblical  verse. 
"In  commenting  on  Ezekiel  I  made  a  mistake  in  the 
explanation  of  this  passage,  and  as,  at  the  end  of  the 
chapter,  I  gave  the  true  sense,  I  contradicted  myself. 
But  in  taking  up  the  question  again  with  my  friend 
Shemaiah,80 1  hastened  to  correct  this  mistake." 

An  old  scholar  named  R.  Dorbal,  or  Durbal,  addressed 
a  question  to  Rashi,  and  Rashi  in  his  reply  expressed  his 
astonishment  that  an  old  man  should  consult  so  young  a 
man  as  he.  Assuredly,  said  Rashi,  it  was  because  he 
wanted  to  give  a  proof  of  his  benevolence  and  take  the 
occasion  for  congratulating  Rashi  on  his  response,  if  it 
were  correct. 

It  would  take  too  long  to  enumerate  all  the  passages 
in  which  Rashi  avows  his  ignorance,  and  declares  he 
cannot  give  a  satisfactory  explanation. 


80  RASHI 

We  have  seen  that  Eashi  did  not  hesitate  to  acknowl- 
edge that  he  owed  certain  information  to  his  friends  and 
pupils,  and  that  his  debates  with  them  had  sometimes  led 
him  to  change  his  opinion.  The  confession  he  made  one 
day  to  his  grandson  Samuel  about  the  inadequacy  of  his 
Biblical  Commentary 81  has  become  celebrated,  and  justly 
so.  There  is  something  touching  in  the  way  he  listened 
to  the  opinions  of  his  grandson,  and  accepted  them 
because  they  appeared  correct  to  him — the  man  who 
loved  truth  and  science  above  everything  else.  Like 
many  noble  spirits,  he  considered  his  work  imperfect, 
and  would  have  liked  to  do  it  all  over  again.  This 
modesty  and  this  realization  of  the  truth  are  the  ruling 
qualities  of  his  nature. 

II 

The  ideal  Jew  combines  virtue  with  knowledge,  and 
tradition  ascribes  to  Eashi  universal  knowledge.  In  the 
first  place  he  was  a  polyglot.  Popular  admiration  of 
him,  based  upon  the  myth  concerning  his  travels  and 
upon  a  superficial  reading  of  this  works,  assigned  to  him 
the  old  miracle  of  the  Apostles.  The  languages  he  was 
supposed  to  know  were  Latin,  Greek,  Arabic,  and  Per- 
sian. He  was  also  said  to  be  acquainted  with  astronomy, 
and  even  with  the  Kabbalah,  of  which,  according  to  the 
Kabbalists,  he  was  an  ardent  adept.  After  his  death, 
they  say,  he  appeared  to  his  grandson  Samuel  to  teach 
him  the  true  pronunciation  of  the  Ineffable  Name. 
Medical  knowledge  was  also  attributed  to  Eashi,  and  a 
medical  work  ascribed  to  his  authorship.  One  scholar 
went  so  far  as  to  call  him  a  calligrapher."  From  his 
infancy,  it  was  declared,  he  astonished  the  world  by  his 


CHAEACTER  AND  LEARNING  81 

learning  and  by  his  memory ;  and  when,  toward  the  end 
of  his  life,  he  went  to  Barcelona,  he  awakened  every  one's 
admiration  by  his  varied  yet  profound  knowledge. 

These  errors,  invented,  or  merely  repeated,  but,  at  all 
events,  given  credence  by  the  Jewish  chroniclers  and  the 
Christian  bibliographers,  cannot  hold  out  against  the 
assaults  of  criticism.  To  give  only  one  example  of 
Rashi's  geographical  knowledge,  it  will  suffice  to  recall 
how  he  represented  the  configuration  of  Palestine  and 
Babylonia,  or  rather  how  he  tried  to  guess  it  from  the 
texts.83  His  ignorance  of  geography  is  apparent  in  his 
commentaries,  which  contain  a  rather  large  number  of 
mistakes.  In  addition,  Rashi  was  not  always  familiar 
with  natural  products,  or  with  the  creations  of  art,  or 
with  the  customs  and  usages  of  distant  countries.  Still 
less  was  a  rabbi  of  the  eleventh  century  likely  to  have 
an  idea  of  what  even  Maimonides  was  unacquainted  with, 
the  local  color  and  the  spirit  of  dead  civilizations. 
Rashi — to  exemplify  this  ignorance — explained  Biblical 
expressions  by  customs  obtaining  in  his  own  day:  "to 
put  into  possession/'  the  Hebrew  of  which  is  "  to  fill  the 
hand,"  he  thinks  he  explains  by  comparing  it  with  a 
feudal  ceremony  and  discovering  in  it  something  anala- 
gous  to  the  act  of  putting  on  gauntlets.  In  general,  the 
authors  of  Rashi's  time,  paying  little  regard  to  historic 
setting,  explained  ancient  texts  by  popular  legends,  or 
by  Christian  or  feudal  customs.  Therefore,  one  need 
not  scruple  to  point  out  this  defect  in  Rashi's  knowledge. 
Like  his  compatriots  he  did  not  know  the  profane 
branches  of  learning.  He  was  subject  to  the  same  limi- 
tations as  nearly  the  entire  body  of  clergy  of  his  day. 
While  the  Arabs  so  eagerly  and  successfully  cultivated 


82  EASHI 

philosophy,  medicine,  astronomy,  and  physics,  Christian 
Europe  was  practically  ignorant  of  these  sciences. 
Finally,  one  will  judge  still  less  severely  of  Eashi's 
knowledge — or  lack  of  knowledge — if  one  remembers 
what  science  was  in  the  Christian  world  of  the  middle 
ages — it  was  childish,  tinged  with  superstition,  extrava- 
gantly absurd,  and  fantastically  naive.  Eashi  believed 
that  the  Nile  flooded  its  banks  once  every  forty  years; 
but  Joinville,  who  lived  two  centuries  later,  and  who  was 
in  Egypt,  tells  even  more  astonishing  things  than  this 
about  the  marvellous  river,  which  has  its  source  in  the 
terrestrial  Paradise. 

Besides  French,  the  only  profane  language  Eashi 
knew  was  German.  The  explanations  he  gives  according 
to  the  Greek,  the  Arabic,  and  the  Persian,  he  obtains 
from  secondary  sources.  Indeed,  they  are  sometimes 
faulty,  and  they  reveal  the  ignorance  of  the  man 
who  reproduced  without  comprehending  them.  No 
great  interest  attaches  to  the  mention  of  his  chrono- 
logical mistakes  and  his  confusion  of  historical  facts. 
His  astronomic  knowledge  is  very  slight,  and  resolves 
itself  into  what  he  borrowed  from  the  Italian  Sabbata'i 
Donnolo,  of  Oria  (about  950). 

But  limited  as  his  knowledge  was  to  Biblical,  Tal- 
mudic,  and  Eabbinical  literature,  it  was  for  that  reason 
all  the  greater  in  the  province  he  had  explored  in  its 
inmost  recesses.  This  is  shown  by  his  numerous 
citations,  the  sureness  of  his  touch,  and  his  mastery  of 
all  the  subjects  of  which  he  treats. 

Thanks  to  the  citations,  we  can  definitely  ascertain 
what  we  might  call  his  library. 


CHARACTER  AND  LEARNING  83 

Needless  to  say,  the  first  place  was  held  by  the  Bible* 
which,  as  will  be  seen,  he  knew  perfectly.  He  wrote 
commentaries  upon  the  Bible  almost  in  its  entirety, 
besides  frequently  referring  to  it  in  his  Talmudic  com- 
mentaries. His  favorite  guide  for  the  explanation  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  the  Aramaic  version  by  Onkelos. 
For  the  Prophets  he  used  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  ben 
Uzziel.*4  He  was  entirely  ignorant  of  the  Apocryphal 
books.  The  Wisdom  of  Ben  Sira,  for  instance,  like  the 
Megillat  Taanit,  or  Roll  of  Fasts,83  were  known  to  him 
only  through  the  citations  of  the  Talmud. 

On  the  other  hand  Rashi  was  thoroughly  conversant 
with  the  whole  field  of  Talmudic  literature — first  of  all 
the  treatises  on  religious  jurisprudence,  the  Mishnah," 
Tosefta?  the  Babylonian  and,  in  part,  the  Palestinian 
Gemara";  then,  the  Halakic  Midrashim,  such  as  the 
Mekilta,  the  Sifra,  the  Sifre,3*  and  Haggadic  compila- 
tions, such  as  the  Rabbot™  the  Midrash  on  the  Song  of 
Songs,  on  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  the  Psalms,  and 
Samuel,  the  Pesilcta"  the  Tanhuma"  and  the  Pirke  de 
Rabbi  Eliezer." 

According  to  tradition,  Rashi  has  set  the  Talmudic 
period  as  the  date  of  composition  of  two  works  which 
modern  criticism  has  placed  in  the  period  of  the  Geonim. 
These  works  are  the  historic  chronicle  Seder  Olam" 
and  the  gnostic  or  mystic  treatise  on  the  Creation,  the 
Sefer  Yezirdh,  the  forerunner  of  the  Kabbalah.  Besides 
these  anonymous  works,  Rashi  knew  the  Responsa  of 
the  Geonim,  which  he  frequently  cites,  notably  those 
of  Sherira  **  and  his  son  Hai,48  the  Sheeltot  of  R.  Aha," 
and  the  Halakot  Gedolot,  attributed  by  the  French 
school  to  Yehudai  Gaon."  In  the  same  period  must  be 


84  EASHI 

placed  two  other  writers  concerning  whom  we  are  not 
wholly  enlightened,  Eleazar  ha-Kalir  and  the  author  of 
the  Jewish  chronicle  entitled  Yosippon.  Eleazar,  who 
lived  in  the  eighth  or  ninth  century,  was  one  of  the  first 
liturgical  poets  both  as  to  time  and  as  to  merit.  The 
author  of  the  Yosippon  undoubtedly  lived  in  Italy  in 
the  tenth  century.  Eashi,  like  all  his  contemporaries, 
confounded  the  two  respectively  with  the  Tanna 
E.  Eleazar  and  the  celebrated  Josephus.  They  were 
considered  authorities  by  all  the  rabbis  of  the  middle 
ages,  the  first  for  his  language  and  his  Midrashic  tradi- 
tions, the  second  for  his  historical  knowledge.** 

So  far  as  the  literature  contemporary,  or  nearly  con- 
temporary, with  Eashi  is  concerned,  it  must  be  stated 
that  Eashi  had  read  all  the  works  written  in  Hebrew, 
while  the  whole  of  Arabic  literature  was  inaccessible  to 
him.  Without  doubt  he  knew  the  grammarian  Judah 
Ibn  Koreish48  only  by  the  citations  from  him.  On  the 
other  hand  he  made  much  use  of  the  works  of  the  two 
Spanish  grammarians,  Menahem  ben  Saruk  and 
Dunash  ben  Labrat,80  likewise  the  works  of  Moses  ha- 
Darshan,  of  ISTarbonne.  Naturally,  he  was  still  better 
versed  in  all  the  rabbinical  literature  of  Northern  France 
and  of  Germany.  He  frequently  cites  E.  Gershom,  whom 
he  once  called  "  Father  and  Light  of  the  Captivity,"  as 
well  as  his  contemporaries  Joseph  Tob  Elem,  Eliezer 
the  Great,  and  Meshullam  ben  Kalonymos,  of  Mayence. 
I  have  already  mentioned — and  will  repeat  further  on — 
how  much  he  owed  his  teachers. 

For  the  sake  of  completeness,  it  is  necessary  to  add  to 
this  list  all  the  contemporaries  from  whom  Eashi  learned 
either  directly  or  indirectly.  For  information  concern- 


CHARACTER  AND  LEARNING  85 

ing  the  Talmud,  Isaac  ben  Menahem  the  Great,  of 
Orleans,  may  be  mentioned  among  these ;  and  for  infor- 
mation concerning  the  Bible,  Menahem  ben  Helbo,  whom 
Rashi  probably  cited  through  the  medium  of  one  of  his 
pupils  or  his  writings,  for  he  himself  was  not  known  to 
Rashi,  his  younger  contemporary. 

If  one  also  takes  into  consideration  the  less  important 
and  the  anonymous  persons  whose  books  or  oral  teachings 
Rashi  cited,  one  will  be  convinced  that  he  had  what  is 
called  a  well-stocked  brain,  and  that  his  knowledge  in 
his  special  domain  was  as  vast  as  it  was  profound,  since 
it  embraced  the  entire  field  of  knowledge  which  the  Jews 
of  Northern  France  of  that  time  could  possibly  cultivate. 
His  learning  was  not  universal ;  far  from  it ;  but  he  was 
master  of  all  the  knowledge  his  countrymen  possessed. 

Thanks  to  this  erudition,  he  could  fill,  at  least  in  part, 
the  gaps  in  his  scientific  education.  In  fact,  an  under- 
standing of  Talmudic  law  presupposes  a  certain  amount 
of  information — geometry  and  botany  for  questions  con- 
cerning land,  astronomy  for  the  fixation  of  the  calendar, 
zoology  for  dietary  laws,  and  so  on.  Rashi's  knowledge, 
then,  was  less  frequently  defective  than  one  is  led  to 
suppose,  although  sometimes  he  lagged  behind  the  Tal- 
mud itself.  It  has  been  noted  that  of  127  or  128  French 
glosses  bearing  upon  the  names  of  plants,  62  are  abso- 
lutely correct.  In  history  Rashi  preserved  some  tradi- 
tions which  we  can  no  longer  verify,  but  which  seem  to 
be  derived  from  sources  worthy  of  confidence;  and  if  it 
had  not  been  for  Rashi,  we  would  not  have  .become 
acquainted  with  them. 

What  he  knew,  therefore,  he  knew  chiefly  through 
reading  and  through  the  instruction  of  his  teachers,  to 


86  EASHI 

whom  he  often  appealed;  for  he  possessed  that  most 
precious  quality  in  a  scholar,  conscience,  scientific 
probity.  One  example  will  suffice  to  give  an  idea  of  his 
method.  Once,  when  he  was  searching  for  a  text  in  his 
copy  of  the  Talmud,  he  found  it  corrected.  But  he  did 
not  remember  if  he  himself  or  his  teacher  had  made  the 
correction.  So  he  consulted  a  manuscript  in  which  he 
had  noted  down  the  variants  of  his  teacher  Isaac  of 
Mayence.  Not  being  able  to  determine  from  this,  he 
begged  his  correspondent  to  look  up  the  manuscript  of 
Isaac  and  to  let  him  know  the  reading. 

This  characteristic  leads  us  back  to  a  consideration  of 
Eashi's  nature,  upon  which  one  likes  to  dwell,  because  it 
makes  him  a  sage  in  the  most  beautiful  and  the  largest 
meaning  of  the  word,  because  it  makes  him  one  of  the 
most  sympathetic  personalities  in  all  Jewish  history. 
If  Eashi  had  left  nothing  but  the  remembrance  of  an 
exemplary  life  and  of  spotless  virtue,  his  name  would 
have  merited  immortality. 

But  Eashi  bequeathed  more  than  this  to  posterity;  he 
left  one,  nay,  two  monuments  to  awaken  admiration  and 
call  forth  gratitude.  They  assure  him  fame  based  on 
a  solid  foundation.  What  matter  if  we  Jews  fail  to 
honor  our  great  men  with  statues  of  marble  and  bronze, 
if  they  themselves  establish  their  glory  on  pedestals  that 
defy  the  ravages  of  time?  Statues  raised  by  the  hand 
of  man  are  perishable  as  man  himself;  the  works  con- 
structed by  a  genius  are  immortal  as  the  genius  himself. 


BOOK  II 
THE   WOEK   OF   EASHI 


BOOK  II 
THE  WORK  or  EASHI 


CHAPTEK  V 
THE  COMMENTARIES — GENERAL  CHARACTERISTICS 

Kashi  stands  before  us  a  teacher  distinguished  and 
original,  a  religious  leader  full  of  tact  and  delicate 
feeling,  a  scholar  clear-headed  and  at  the  same  time 
loving-hearted.  In  which  capacity,  as  teacher,  religious 
leader,  scholar,  does  he  evoke  our  deepest  admiration? 
Shall  we  accord  it  to  the  one  who  made  a  home  for 
Talmudic  studies  on  the  banks  of  the  Seine,  and  so  gave 
a  definite  impetus  to  French  Jewish  civilization?  Or 
shall  we  accord  it  to  the  one  who  for  nearly  forty  years 
presided  over  the  spiritual  destinies  of  an  active  and 
studious  population  and  fulfilled  the  duties  of  a  rabbi; 
with  all  the  more  devotion,  without  doubt,  because  he 
did  not  have  the  title  of  rabbi  ?  Or  should  we  not  rather 
pay  our  highest  tribute  to  Kashi  the  man,  so  upright  and 
modest,  so  simple  and  amiable,  who  has  won  for  himself 
the  veneration  of  posterity  as  much  by  the  qualities  of 
his  heart  as  by  those  of  his  intellect,  as  much  by  his 
goodness  and  kindliness  as  by  the  subtlety  and  acumen 
of  his  mind,  in  a  word,  as  much  by  his  character  as  by 
his  knowledge?  Nevertheless  his  knowledge  was  extra- 


90  RASHI 

ordinary  and  productive  of  great  works,  which  we  shall 
consider  in  the  following  chapters. 

As  spiritual  chief  of  the  French  Jews,  it  was  natural 
that  Rashi  should  occupy  himself  with  the  source  of  their 
intellectual  and  religious  activity,  with  the  Bible.  But 
in  his  capacity  of  Talmudist  and  teacher,  it  was  equally 
natural  that  he  should  devote  himself  to  the  explanation 
of  the  Talmud,  which  formed  the  basis  of  instruction  in 
the  schools,  besides  serving  to  regulate  the  acts  of  every- 
day life  and  the  practices  of  religion.  And  as  a  rab- 
binical authority  he  was  called  upon  to  resolve  the 
problems  that  arose  out  of  individual  difficulties  or  out 
of  communal  questions.  We  need  no  other  guide  than 
this  to  lead  us  to  an  understanding  of  his  works.  But 
not  to  omit  anything  essential,  it  would  be  well  to 
mention  some  collections  which  were  the  result  of  his 
instruction,  and  some  liturgical  poems  attributed  to 
him. 


Rashi  owes  his  great  reputation  to  his  commentaries 
on  the  two  great  works  that  comprehend  Jewish  life  in 
its  entirety,  and  lie  at  the  very  root  of  the  intellectual 
development  of  Judaism,  the  Bible  and  the  Talmud. 
His  commentaries  involving  an  enormous  amount  of 
labor  are  all  but  complete ;  they  fail  to  cover  only  a  few 
books  of  the  Bible  and  a  few  treatises  of  the  Talmud. 
The  conjecture  has  been  made  that  at  first  he  set  himself 
to  commenting  on  the  Talmud,  and  then  on  the  Bible, 
because  at  the  end  of  his  life  he  expressed  the  wish  that 
he  might  begin  the  Biblical  commentary  all  over  again. 
But  this  hypothesis  is  not  justified.  The  unfinished 


THE  COMMENTARIES  91 

state  of  both  commentaries,  especially  the  one  on  the 
Talmud,  shows  that  he  worked  on  them  at  the  same  time. 
But  they  were  not  written  without  interruption,  not  "  in 
one  spurt/'  as  the  college  athlete  might  say.  Eashi 
worked  at  them  intermittently,  going  back  to  them 
again  and  again.  It  is  certain  that  so  far  as  the  Tal- 
mudic  treatises  are  concerned,  he  did  not  exert  himself 
to  follow  the  order  in  which  they  occur.  He  may  have 
taken  them  up  when  he  explained  them  in  his  school. 
But  in  commenting  on  the  Bible,  it  seems,  he  adhered 
to  the  sequence  of  the  books,  for  it  was  on  the  later  books 
that  he  did  not  have  the  time  to  write  commentaries. 
Moreover,  he  sometimes  went  back  to  his  commentary  on 
a  Biblical  book  or  a  Talmudic  treatise,  not  because  he 
worked  to  order,  like  Ibn  Ezra,  and  as  circumstances 
dictated,  but  because  he  was  not  satisfied  with  his  former 
attempt,  and  because,  in  the  course  of  his  study,  the  same 
subject  came  up  for  his  consideration.  Though  the  com- 
mentaries, then,  were  not  the  result  of  long,  steady  ap- 
plication, they  demanded  long-continued  efforts,  and  they 
were,  one  may  say,  the  business  of  his  whole  life.  The 
rabbi  Isaac  of  Vienna,  who  possessed  an  autograph  com- 
mentary of  Eashi,  speaks  of  the  numerous  erasures  and 
various  marks  with  which  it  was  embroidered. 

The  commentaries  of  Eashi,  which  do  not  bear  special 
titles,  are  not  an  uninterrupted  exposition  of  the  entire 
work  under  consideration,  and  could  not  be  read  from 
cover  to  cover  without  recourse  to  the  text  explained; 
they  are  rather  detached  glosses,  postils,  to  borrow  an 
expression  from  ecclesiastical  literature,  upon  terms  or 
phrases  presenting  some  difficulties.  They  are  always 
preceded  by  the  word  or  words  to  be  explained. 


92  KASHI 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  Eashi's  works  do  not  bear 
witness  to  great  originality,  or,  better,  to  great  creative 
force.  Eashi  lacks  elevation  in  his  point  of  view, 
breadth  of  outlook,  and  largeness  of  conception.  He 
possessed  neither  literary  taste  nor  esthetic  sense.  He 
was  satisfied  to  throw  light  upon  an  obscurity,  to  fill  up 
a  lacuna,  ta  justify  an  apparent  imperfection,  to  explain 
a  peculiarity  of  style,  or  to  reconcile  contradictions. 
He  never  tried  to  call  attention  to  the  beauties  of  the 
text  or  to  give  a  higher  idea  of  the  original;  he  never 
succeeded  in  bringing  into  relief  the  humanity  of  a  law, 
or  the  universal  bearing  of  an  event. 

Eashi  failed  also  to  regard  a  thing  in  its  entirety. 
He  did  not  write  prefaces  to  his  works  setting  forth  the 
contents  of  the  book  and  the  method  to  be  pursued."1  In 
the  body  of  the  commentaries,  he  hardly  ever  dwells  on 
a  subject  at  length,  but  contents  himself  with  a  brief 
explanation.  In  short,  his  horizon  was  limited  and  he 
lacked  perspective.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  he  did  not 
know  the  philosophic  works  of  Saadia,  who  would  have 
opened  up  new  worlds  to  him,  and  would  have  enlarged 
the  circle  of  his  ideas.  If  he  had  read  only  the  Biblical 
commentaries  of  the  great  Gaon,  he  would  have  learned 
from  him  how  to  grasp  a  text  in  its  entirety  and  give  a 
general  idea  of  a  work. 

Even  if  he  had  limited  himself  to  the  Talmud,  Eashi, 
without  doubt,  would  have  been  incapable  of  raising  a 
vast  and  harmonious  edifice,  like  the  Mishneh  Torah  of 
Maimonides.  He  did  not  possess  the  art  of  developing 
the  various  sides  of  a  subject  so  as  to  produce  a  well- 
ordered  whole.  He  lacked  not  only  literary  ambition, 
but  also  that  genius  for  organizing  and  systematizing 


THE  COMMENTAEIES  93 

which  classifies  and  co-ordinates  all  the  laws.  Though 
methodical,  he  lacked  the  power  to  generalize. 

This  defect,  common  to  his  contemporaries,  arose, 
possibly,  from  a  certain  timidity.  He  believed  that  he 
ought  to  efface  himself  behind  his  text,  and  not  let  his 
own  idea  take  the  place  of  the  author's,  especially  when 
the  text  was  a  religious  law  and  the  author  the  Divine 
legislator.  But  it  seems  that  his  power  of  creative 
thought  was  not  strong,  and  could  exercise  itself  only 
upon  the  more  original  works  of  others.  We  find  analo- 
gous features  in  scholastic  literature,  which  developed 
wholly  in  the  shadow  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Fathers  of 
the  Church,  and  Aristotle. 

This  narrow  criticism,  this  eye  for  detail,  this  lack  of 
general  ideas  and  of  guiding  principles  at  least  guarded 
Rashi  against  a  danger  more  original  spirits  failed  to 
escape,  namely,  of  reading  preconceived  notions  into  the 
text,  of  interpreting  it  by  an  individual  method,  and, 
thus,  of  gathering  more  meaning,  or  another  meaning, 
than  was  intended  by  the  author.  Unlike  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  theologians,  Rashi  felt  no  need  to  do 
violence  to  the  text  in  order  to  reconcile  it  with  his 
scientific  and  philosophic  beliefs. 

Though  Rashi,  as  I  said,  had  not  a  creative  intellect, 
he  yet  had  all  the  qualities  of  a  commentator.  First  of 
all,  he  possessed  clearness,  the  chief  requisite  for  a 
commentary,  which  undertakes  to  explain  a  work  unin- 
telligible to  its  readers.  "To  write  like  Rashi"  has 
become  a  proverbial  expression  for  "  to  write  clearly  and 
intelligibly."  Rashi  always  or  nearly  always  uses  the 
expression  one  expects.  He  finds  the  explanation  that 
pbtrudes  itself  because  it  is  simple  and  easy;  he  excels 
7 


94  EASHI 

in  unravelling  difficulties  and  illuminating  obscurities. 
To  facilitate  comprehension  by  the  reader  Eashi  re- 
sorted to  the  use  of  pictures  and  diagrams,  some  of 
which  still  appear  in  his  Talmudic  commentary,  though 
a  number  have  been  suppressed  by  the  editors.  Once, 
when  asked  for  the  explanation  of  a  difficult  passage  in 
Ezekiel,  he  replied  that  he  had  nothing  to  add  to  what 
he  had  said  in  his  commentary,  but  he  would  send  a 
diagram  which  would  render  the  text  more  intelligible. 
It  is  remarkable  with  what  ease,  even  without  the  aid 
of  illustrations,  he  unravelled  the  chapters  of  Ezekiel 
in  which  the  Prophet  describes  the  Temple  of  his 
fancy;  or  the  equally  complicated  chapters  of  Exodus 
which  set  forth  the  plan  of  the  Tabernacle. 

Essentially  this  power  of  exposition  is  the  attribute  of 
intelligent  insight.  Eashi's  was  the  clearest,  the  most 
transparent  mind — no  clouds  nor  shadows,  no  ambi- 
guities, no  evasions.  He  leaves  nothing  to  be  taken  for 
granted,  he  makes  no  mental  reservations.  He  is  clear- 
ness and  transparency  itself. 

But  Eashfs  language  is  not  merely  clear;  it  is  ex- 
tremely precise.  It  says  with  accuracy  exactly  what  it 
sets  out  to  say.  Eashi  did  not  hesitate  sometimes  to 
coin  new  words  for  the  sake  of  conveying  his  thought. 
He  always  heeded  the  connotation  of  a  word,  and  took 
the  context  into  account.  Once,  in  citing  a  Talmudic 
explanation  of  a  verse  in  Jeremiah,  he  rejected  it, 
because  it  did  not  square  with  the  development  of  the 
thought;  and  often  he  would  not  accept  an  interpre- 
tation, because  a  word  in  the  text  was  given  a  meaning 
which  it  did  not  have  in  any  other  passage.  He  grasped, 
and  rendered  in  turn  with  perfect  accuracy,  shades  of 


THE  COMMENTAEIES  95 

meaning  and  subtleties  of  language;  and  the  fine  ex- 
pression of  relations  difficult  to  solve  surprises  and 
charms  the  reader  by  its  precision. 

Commentators  in  the  effort  to  be  clear  are  often 
wordy,  and  those  who  aim  at  brevity  often  lack  per- 
spicuity. The  latter  applies  to  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra,  who 
might  have  said  with  the  poet,  "I  avoid  long-winded- 
ness,  and  I  become  obscure."  Samuel  ben  Me'ir,  on 
the  other  hand,  grandson  and  pupil  of  Eashi,  is,  at  least 
in  his  Talmudic  commentaries,  so  long-winded  and 
prolix  that  at  first  glance  one  can  detect  the  additions 
made  by  him  to  the  commentaries  of  his  grandfather. 
It  is  related,  that  once,  when  Eashi  was  ill,  Samuel 
finished  the  commentary  Eashi  had  begun,  and  when 
Eashi  got  well  he  weighed  the  leaves  on  which  his  pupil 
had  written  and  said :  "  If  thou  hadst  commented  on 
the  whole  Talmud  after  this  fashion,  thy  commentary 
would  have  been  as  heavy  as  a  chariot."  The  story, 
which  attributes  somewhat  uncharitable  words  to  Eashi, 
yet  contains  an  element  of  truth,  and  emphasizes  the 
eminent  quality  of  his  own  commentaries. 

He  rarely  goes  into  very  long  explanations.  Often 
he  solves  a  difficulty  by  one  word,  by  shooting  one  flash 
of  light  into  the  darkness.  The  scholar  and  biblio- 
grapher Azula'i  scarcely  exaggerated  when  he  said  that 
Eashi  could  express  in  one  letter  that  for  which  others 
needed  whole  pages.  A  close  study  of  the  Talmudic 
commentaries  shows  that  he  replied  in  advance  and 
very  briefly  to  the  questions  of  many  a  Talmudist. 

It  is  only  in  considering  the  difficult  passages  that 
he  goes  to  greater  length  to  note  and  discuss  explana- 
tions previously  propounded.  Take  for  example  what 


96  EASHI 

he  says  on  the  words  p^>  niD  W.  the  superscription 
of  Psalm  ix,  which  are  a  crux  interpretum.  At  the 
same  time  the  reader  will  observe  how  ancient  are  certain 
interpretations  of  modern  exegetes.  Eashi  begins  by 
refuting  those  who  allege  that  David  wrote  this  Psalm 
on  the  death  of  his  son  Absalom;  for  in  that  case  pn 
and  not  p^>  would  have  been  necessary,  and  nothing  in 
the  text  bears  out  this  explanation.  Others  transposed 
the  letters  of  p?  to  read  Sa3,  but  there  is  no  reference 
to  Nabal  in  this  Psalm.  Others  again,  like  the  Great 
Massorah,  make  a  single  word  of  niD^  Menahem  and 
Dunash,62  each  proposes  an  explanation  which  seems  to 
be  incorrect.  The  Pesilcta,  in  view  of  verse  6,  thinks  the 
Psalm  refers  to  Amalek  and  Esau;  and  this,  too,  is  not 
satisfying.  Finally,  Eashi  gives  his  own  explanation, — 
scarcely  better  than  the  others, — that  the  Psalm  deals 
with  the  rejuvenation  and  purity  of  Israel  when  it 
will  have  been  redeemed  from  the  Eoman  captivity. 

When  difficult  questions  are  propounded  by  the  Tal- 
mud, or  arise  out  of  a  consideration  of  the  Talmud, 
Eashi  cites  previous  explanations  or  parallel  texts. 
But  this  is  exceptional.  As  a  rule  he  finds  with  mar- 
vellous nicety  and  without  circumlocution  the  exact 
word,  the  fitting  expression,  the  necessary  turn.  One 
or  two  words  suffice  for  him  to  sum  up  an  observation, 
to  anticipate  a  question,  to  forestall  an  unexpressed 
objection,  to  refute  a  false  interpretation,  or  to  throw 
light  upon  the  true  meaning  of  word  or  phrase.  This 
is  expressed  in  the  saying,  "  In  Eashi's  time  a  drop  of 
ink  was  worth  a  piece  of  gold."  It  was  not  without 
justification — though,  perhaps,  the  practice  was  carried 
to  excess — that  for  centuries  commentaries  were  written 


THE  COMMENTAEIES  97 

upon  these  suggestive  words  of  his  under  the  title 
Dikduke  Rashi,  the  "  Mceties  of  Kashi."  Even  at  the 
present  day  his  commentaries  are  minutely  studied  for 
the  purpose  of  finding  a  meaning  for  each  word.  In 
fact,  because  of  this  concise,  lapidary  style,  his  com- 
mentaries called  into  existence  other  commentaries, 
which  set  out  to  interpret  his  ideas, — and  frequently 
found  ideas  that  did  not  belong  there.  Though  the 
authors  of  these  super-commentaries  were  Eashi's 
admirers,  they  were  scarcely  his  imitators.  , 

In  this  regard  it  is  of  interest  to  compare  the  com- 
mentary of  Kashi  upon  the  beginning  of  the  treatise 
Baba  Batra  with  that  of  Samuel  ben  Me'ir  upon  the  end 
of  the  treatise,  which  Eashi  did  not  succeed  in  reaching. 
An  even  more  striking  comparison  may  be  made  with 
the  commentary  of  ISTissim  Gerundi  upon  the  abridg- 
ment of  the  Talmud  by  Alfasi,  which  is  printed  opposite 
to  that  of  Eashi.58  Eashi's  style  is  unmistakable,  and 
prolixness  in  a  commentary  attributed  to  him  is  proof 
against  the  alleged  paternity. 

By  virtue  of  these  qualities,  possessed  by  Eashi  in  so 
high  a  degree,  he  is  true  to  the  traditions  of  French 
literature,  which  is  distinguished  for  simplicity  and 
clearness  among  all  literatures.  Besides,  he  compares 
with  the  French  writers  of  the  middle  ages  in  his  disre- 
gard of  "  style."  It  is  true,  he  handles  with  ease 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic,  or,  rather,  the  rabbinical  idiom, 
which  is  a  mixture  of  the  two.  But  he  is  not  a  writer 
in  the  true  sense  of  the  word.  His  language  is  simple 
and  somewhat  careless,  and  his  writing  lacks  all  traces 
of  esthetic  quality. 


98  EASHI 

Since  the  Bible  and  the  Talmud  made  appeal  to 
readers  of  another  time  and  another  language  than  those 
in  which  they  were  written,  Eashi's  first  duty  was  to 
explain  them,  then,  if  necessary,  translate  them,  now  to 
add  clearness  to  the  explanation,  now  to  do  away  with 
it  wholly.  These  translations,  sometimes  bearing  upon 
entire  passages,  more  often  upon  single  words,  were 
called  glosses,  Hebrew  laazim  (better,  leazim) ,the  plural 
of  laaz.  They  were  French  words  transcribed  into 
Hebrew  characters,  and  they  formed  an  integral  part  of 
the  text.  Eashi  had  recourse  to  them  in  his  teaching 
when  the  precise  Hebrew  expression  was  lacking,  or 
when  he  explained  difficult  terms,  especially  technical 
terms  of  arts  and  crafts.  The  use  of  a  French  word 
saved  him  a  long  circumlocution.  Sometimes,  the  laaz 
followed  a  definition  or  description,  in  a  striking 
manner  giving  the  meaning  of  the  word  or  expression. 

In  employing  these  French  laazim,  Eashi  introduced 
no  innovation.  His  predecessors,  especially  his  masters, 
had  already  made  use  of  them,  perhaps  in  imitation  of 
the  Christian  commentators,  who  likewise  inserted 
words  of  the  vernacular  in  their  Latin  explanations. 
The  Latin-speaking  clergy  were  often  forced  to  employ 
the  common  speech  for  instructing  the  people;  and  in 
the  eleventh  century  beginnings  were  made  in  the  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  by  the 
rendition  of  important  passages.  But  while  it  per- 
turbed the  Church  to  see  the  Scriptures  spread  too 
freely  before  the  gaze  of  the  layman,  the  rabbis  never 
feared  that  the  ordinary  Jew  might  know  his  Bible  too 
well,  and  they  availed  themselves  of  the  laazim  without 
scruple.  The  frequent  occurrence  of  the  laazim  is  one  of 


THE  COMMENTARIES  99 

a  number  of  proofs  that  French  was  the  current  speech 
of  the  Jews  of  France.  Hebrew,  like  Latin  among  the 
Christian  clergy,  was  merely  the  language  of  literature 
and  of  the  liturgy.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  treatises 
containing  most  laazim  bear  upon  questions  affecting  the 
common  acts  of  daily  life — upon  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  (treatise  Shabbat),  upon  the  dietary  laws, 
(Hullin),  and  upon  laws  concerning  the  relations  of 
Jews  with  non-Jews  (Abodah  Zarah).  Rashi  extended 
the  use  of  the  laazim,  developing  this  mode  of  explana- 
tion; and  the  commentaries  of  his  disciples,  who  con- 
tinued his  method,  are  strewn  with  French  words,  which 
were  then  inserted  in  the  Hebrew-French  glossaries. 
Several  of  these  glossaries  are  about  to  be  published. 
After  Rashi's  commentaries  became  a  classic  wherever 
there  were  Jews,  the  laazim  were  often  translated  into  a 
foreign  language,  as  into  German  or  Italian.  The 
Pseudo-Rashi  on  Alfasi,54  following  the  manuscripts, 
sometimes  presents  a  German  translation  now  with,  now 
without  the  French  word. 

Rashi's  Biblical  and  Talmudic  commentaries  contain 
3157  laazim,  of  which  967  occur  in  the  Biblical  com- 
mentaries and  2190  in  the  Talmudic,  forming  in  the 
two  commentaries  together  a  vocabulary  of  about  two 
thousand  different  words.  In  the  Biblical  commen- 
taries, concerned,  as  a  rule,  not  so  much  with  the  ex- 
planation of  the  meaning  of  a  word  as  with  its  gram- 
matical form,  the  laazim  reproduce  the  person,  tense, 
or  gender  of  the  Hebrew  word;  in  the  Talmudic  com- 
mentaries, where  the  difficulty  resides  in  the  very  sense 
of  the  word,  the  laazim  give  a  translation  without  regard 
to  grammatical  form. 


100  EASHI 

At  the  present  time  these  laazim  are  of  interest  to  us, 
not  only  as  the  expression  of  Eashi's  ideas,  hut  also  as 
vehicles  of  information  concerning  the  old  French.  As 
early  an  investigator  as  Zunz  remarked  that  if  one  could 
restore  them  to  their  original  form,  they  would  serve 
as  a  lexicon  of  the  French  language  at  the  time  of 
the  Crusades.  But  even  Zunz  did  not  realize  the  full 
value  to  be  extracted  from  them.  The  rare  specimens 
that  we  possess  of  the  langue  d'oiil*  of  the  eleventh 
century  belong  to  the  Norman  dialect  and  to  the 
language  of  poetry.  Written,  as  they  were,  in  Cham- 
pagne, the  laazim  of  Eashi  represent  almost  the  pure 
French  (the  language  spoken  in  Champagne  lay 
between  the  dialect  of  the  Ile-de-France  and  that  of 
Lorraine8*),  and,  what  is  more,  they  were  words  in 
common  use  among  the  people,  for  they  generally 
designated  objects  of  daily  use.  These  laazim,  then, 
constitute  a  document  of  the  highest  importance  for  the 
reconstruction  of  old  French,  as  much  from  a  phonetic 
and  morphologic  point  of  view,  as  from  the  point  of 
view  of  lexicography;  for  the  Hebrew  transcription 
fixes  to  a  nicety  the  pronunciation  of  the  word  because 
of  the  richness  of  the  Hebrew  in  vowels  and  because  of 
the  strict  observance  of  the  rules  of  transcription. 
Moreover,  in  the  matter  of  lexicography  the  laazim 
offer  useful  material  for  the  history  of  certain  words, 
and  bring  to  our  knowledge  popular  words  not  to  be 
found  in  literary  and  official  texts.  In  the  case  of 
many  of  these  terms,  their  appearance  in  Eashi  is  the 
earliest  known ;  otherwise  they  occur  only  at  a  later  date. 
And  it  is  not  difficult  to  put  the  laazim  back  into  French, 
because  of  the  well-defined  system  of  transcription 


THE  COMMENTARIES  101 

employed.  Even  the  laws  of  declension  (or  what  re- 
mained of  declension  in  the  old  French)  are  observed. 

Unfortunately,  the  great  use  made  of  Rashi's  com- 
mentaries necessitated  a  large  number  of  copies,  and 
frequent  copying  produced  many  mistakes.  Naturally, 
it  was  the  laazim  that  suffered  most  from  the  ignorance 
and  carelessness  of  the  copyists  and  printers,  especially 
in  the  countries  in  which  French  was  not  the  current 
language.  Efforts  have  been  made  within  the  last  two 
centuries  to  restore  the  laazim.  Mendelssohn  and 
his  associates  applied  themselves  to  the  commentary 
on  the  Pentateuch,  Lowe,  to  the  Psalms,  Neumann,  to 
the  Minor  Prophets,  Jeitteles  and  Laudau,  to  the  whole 
of  the  Bible,  and  the  Bondi  brothers,  Dormitzer,  and, 
above  all,  Landau,  to  the  Talmudic  commentaries.  But 
these  authors,  not  having  consulted  the  manuscripts  and 
knowing  the  French  language  of  the  middle  ages  only 
imperfectly,  arrived  at  insufficient  results.  Even  the 
identifications  of  Berliner  in  his  critical  edition  of  the 
commentary  on  the  Pentateuch  are  not  always  exact 
and  are  rarely  scientific. 

Arsene  Darmesteter  (1846-1888),  one  of  the  elect  of 
French  Judaism  and  a  remarkable  scholar  in  the  phil- 
ology of  the  Romance  languages,  realized  that  in  the 
commentaries  of  Rashi  "the  science  of  philology  pos- 
sesses important  material  upon  which  to  draw  for  the 
history  of  the  language  in  an  early  stage  of  its  develop- 
ment." With  the  aim  of  utilizing  this  material,  he 
visited  the  libraries  of  England  and  Italy,  and  gathered 
much  that  was  important ;  but  his  numerous  occupations 
and  his  premature  death  prevented  him  from  finishing 
and  publishing  his  work.  In  the  interests  of  French 


102  EASHI 

philology  as  well  as  for  a  complete  understanding  of 
the  text  of  Rashi,  it  would  be  advantageous  to  publish 
the  notes  that  he  collected.  In  fact,  such  a  work  will 
appear,  but  unfortunately  not  in  the  proportions 
Darmesteter  would  have  given  it.  Nevertheless,  it  will 
be  found  to  contain  information  and  unique  infor- 
mation, upon  the  history,  the  phonetics,  and  the  ortho- 
graphy of  medieval  French;  for  the  first  literary  works, 
which  go  as  far  back  as  the  eleventh  century,  the  life 
of  Saint  Alexius  and  the  epic  of  Roland,  have  not  come 
down  to  us  in  the  form  in  which  they  were  written. 
"What  would  the  trouveres  of  Roland  and  the  clerics 
of  Saint  Alexius  have  said  if  they  had  been  told  that 
one  day  the  speech  of  their  warrior  songs  and  their 
pious  homilies  would  need  the  aid  of  the  Ghetto  to 
reach  the  full  light  of  day,  and  the  living  sound  of  their 
words  would  fall  upon  the  ears  of  posterity  through  the 
accursed  jargon  of  an  outlawed  race?" 

In  this  chapter  I  have  made  some  general  observa- 
tions upon  the  composition  and  the  method  of  the 
Biblical  and  Talmudic  Commentaries  of  Rashi.  Con- 
cerning their  common  characteristics  there  is  little  to 
add,  except  to  remark  that  the  explanations  are  gen- 
erally simple,  natural,  and  unforced.  This  is  especially 
true  of  the  Talmudic  commentaries.  Rashi  in  large 
part  owes  the  foundations  upon  which  his  works  are 
built  to  his  predecessors,  and  no  higher  praise  could  be 
accorded  him  than  to  say  that  he  knew  the  great  mass 
of  traditions  and  the  explanations  made  before  him. 

However,  Rashi  rather  frequently  gave  his  own  per- 
sonal explanation,  either  because  he  did  not  know 
another,  or  because  those  propounded  before  him  did 


THE  COMMENTABIES  103 

not  seem  adequate  or  satisfying.  In  the  latter  case,  he 
usually  put  down  the  rejected  explanation  before  setting 
forth  his  own.  Yet  there  are  cases  in  which  intelligence 
and  imagination  fail  to  supply  knowledge  of  some 
special  circumstance;  and  such  lack  of  knowledge  led 
Eashi  into  many  errors.  On  the  whole,  however,  the 
commentaries  contain  invaluable  information,  and  are 
of  the  very  highest  importance  for  Jewish  history  and 
literature,  because  of  the  citations  in  them  of  certain 
lost  works,  or  because  of  hints  of  certain  facts  which 
otherwise  would  be  unknown.  Modern  historians  justly 
recognize  in  Eashi  one  of  the  most  authoritative  repre- 
sentatives of  rabbinical  tradition,  and  it  is  rare  for  them 
to  consult  him  without  profit  to  themselves. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTABIES 

"Thanks  to  Rashi  the  Torah  has  been  renewed. 
The  word  of  the  Lord  in  his  mouth  was  truth.  His 
way  was  perfect  and  always  the  same.  By  his  commen- 
tary he  exalted  the  Torah  and  fortified  it.  All  wise 
men  and  all  scholars  recognize  him  as  master,  and 
acknowledge  that  there  is  no  commentary  comparable 
with  his."  This  enthusiastic  verdict  of  Eliezer  ben 
Nathan  **  has  been  ratified  by  the  following  generations, 
which,  by  a  clever  play  upon  words,  accorded  him  the 
title  of  Parshandata,  Interpreter  of  the  Law."  And, 
verily,  during  his  life  Rashi  had  been  an  interpreter  of 
the  Law,  when  he  explained  the  Scriptures  to  his 
disciples  and  to  his  other  co-religionists;  and  he  pro- 
longed this  beneficent  activity  in  his  commentaries,  in 
which  one  seems  to  feel  his  passionate  love  of  the  law 
of  God  and  his  lively  desire  to  render  the  understanding 
of  it  easy  to  his  people.  Yet  it  is  true  that  all  scholars 
did  not  share  in  the  general  admiration  of  Rashi,  and 
discordant  notes  may  be  heard  in  the  symphony  of 
enthusiasm. 

Of  what  avail  these  eulogies  and  what  signify  these 
reservations  ? 

If  one  reflects  that  the  Bible  is  at  the  same  time  the 
most  important  and  the  most  obscure  of  the  books  that 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTAEIES        105 

antiquity  has  bequeathed  to  us,  it  seems  natural  that 
it  should  soon  have  been  translated  and  commented 
upon.  The  official  Aramaic  translation,  or  Targum,  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  attributed  to  Onkelos  and  that  of  the 
Prophets"  to  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel.  Eashi  constantly 
draws  inspiration  from  both  these  works,  and  possibly 
also  from  the  Targumim  to  the  Hagiographa,  which  are 
much  more  recent  than  the  other  two  Targumim. 
Sometimes  he  simply  refers  to  them,  sometimes  he  re- 
produces them,  less  frequently  he  remarks  that  they  do 
not  agree  with  the  text. 

For  the  establishment  of  the  text  Eashi  scrupulously 
follows  the  Massorah,  the  "  Scriptural  Statistics/'  the 
work  of  scholars  who  lived  in  the  period  between  the 
seventh  and  the  tenth  century,  and  who  assured  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  Bible  by  counting  the  number  of  verses 
in  each  book  and  the  number  of  times  each  word,  phrase, 
or  expression  recurs.  The  Massorah  soon  came  to  have 
great  authority ;  and  many  scholars,  such  as  E.  Gershom, 
for  example,  copied  it  with  their  own  hands  in  order  to 
have  a  correct  and  carefully  made  text  of  the  Bible. 
The  Massorah  was  Rashi's  constant  guide.  From  a 
calculation  made  of  the  number  of  times  he  transgressed 
its  rules,  the  infractions  do  not  appear  to  be  numerous, 
and  sometimes  they  seem  to  have  been  involuntary. 
As  a  consequence,  variants  from  the  text  of  the  Bible 
are  extremely  rare  in  Eashi,  and  the  copyists  eliminated 
them  entirely.  In  general  at  his  time  the  text  was 
definitely  established  to  the  minutest  details,  and  vari- 
ants, if  there  were  any,  were  due  to  blunders  of  the 
copyists.  Eashi,  who  probably  carefully  compared 
manuscripts,  once  remarked  upon  such  faulty  readings. 


106  KASHI 

It  is  to  the  Massoretes  that  some  attribute  the  ac- 
cents which  serve  to  mark  at  once  the  punctuation 
and  the  accentuation  of  the  Biblical  text.  Kashi  nat- 
urally conformed  to  this  system  of  accentuation,  and  if 
he  departed  from  it,  it  seems  he  frequently  did  so 
inadvertently. 


But  the  two  great  sources  upon  which  Eashi  drew 
for  his  exegesis  were  the  Talmudic  and  the  Midrashic 
literature,  with  their  two  methods  of  interpreting  the 
Scriptures.  As  a  knowledge  of  these  two  methods  is 
indispensable  to  an  understanding  of  Rashi's  exegesis,  I 
will  give  some  pages  from  the  work  of  a  recent  French 
exegete,  L.  Wogue,  who  presents  an  excellent  charac- 
terization of  them  in  his  Histoire  de  la  Bible  et  de 
I'exegese  biblique: 

Whatever  diversities  may  exist  in  the  point  of  view 
adopted  by  the  investigators  of  the  Bible,  in  the  aims  they 
pursued,  and  in  the  methods  they  employed,  the  methods 
are  necessarily  to  be  summed  up  in  the  two  terms,  peshat 
and  derash.  This  is  a  fact  which  scarcely  requires  demon- 
stration. There  are  only  two  ways  of  understanding  or 
explaining  any  text  whatsoever,  either  according  to  the 
natural  acceptation  of  its  meaning,  or  contrary  to  this 
acceptation.  At  first  glance  it  seems  as  though  the  former 
were  the  only  reasonable  and  legitimate  method,  and  as 
though  the  second  lacked  either  sincerity  or  common  sense, 
and  had  no  right  to  the  title  of  method.  Yet  we  shall  see 
how  it  came  about,  and  how  it  was  bound  to  come  about, 
that  the  Derash  not  only  arose  in  the  Synagogue,  but  as- 
sumed preponderating  importance  there. 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTAEIES        107 

From  very  ancient  times  the  Pentateuch  and  certain 
chapters  of  the  Prophets  were  read  or  translated  in  the 
synagogue  every  Saturday.  Accordingly,  -the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Law  could  not  be  slavishly  literal. 

Destined  for  the  edification  of  the  ignorant  masses  in- 
clined to  superstition,  it  perforce  permitted  itself  some 
freedom  in  order  to  avoid  annoying  misconceptions.  Some- 
times the  literal  rendition  might  suggest  gross  errors  con- 
cerning the  Divine  Being,  sometimes  it  might  appear  to  be 
in  conflict  with  practices  consecrated  by  the  oral  law  or  by 
an  old  tradition,  and  sometimes,  finally,  it  might  in  itself 
be  grotesque  and  unintelligible.  Hence  a  double  tendency 
in  exegesis,  each  tendency  asserting  itself  in  the  synagogue 
at  different  epochs  and  with  varying  force  ....  Two 
sorts  of  Midrash  are  to  be  distinguished;  if  the  ques- 
tion concerns  jurisprudence  or  religious  practice,  it  is 
called  Midrash  Halakah,  Halakic  or  legal  exegesis;  if  the 
subject  bears  upon  dogmas,  promises,  the  consolations  of 
religion,  moral  truths,  or  the  acts  of  daily  life,  the  Midrash 
is  called  Midrash  Haggadah,  the  Haggadic  or  ethical  exe- 
gesis. The  first  is  intended  to  regulate  the  form  and  the 
external  exercise  of  religion;  the  second,  to  sanctify  and 
perfect  man's  inward  being.  Each  brings  to  the  examina- 
tion of  the  text  a  preconceived  notion,  as  it  were;  and  it 
reconciles  text  and  preconceived  notion  sometimes  by  tradi- 
tional, sometimes  by  arbitrary,  methods,  often  more  ingeni- 
ous than  rational.  The  Peshat,  on  the  contrary,  subordi- 
nates its  own  ideas  to  the  text,  wishes  to  see  in  the  text  only 
what  is  actually  there,  and  examines  it  without  bias 

The  pious  instructors  of  the  people  felt  the  need  of 
utilizing  and  applying  to  daily  life  as  much  as  possible  these 
Holy  Scriptures,  the  one  treasure  that  had  escaped  so  many 
shipwrecks.  That  a  word  should  have  but  one  meaning, 
that  a  phrase  should  have  but  one  subject,  this  seemed 
mean,  shabby,  inadequate,  unworthy  the  Supreme  Wisdom 
that  inspired  the  Bible.  The  word  of  God  was  perforce 
more  prolific.  Each  new  interpretation  of  the  -Biblical  text 


108  EASHI 

added  richness  and  new  value  to  the  precious  heritage.  .  .  . 
Another  very  important  circumstance,  if  it  did  not  originate 
the  Midrashic  method,  at  all  events  tended  strongly  to 
bring  it  into  vogue.  I  speak  of  the  religious  life,  such  as 
it  was  among  the  Israelites,  especially  in  the  time  of  the 
second  Temple.  A  number  of  practices,  more  or  less  sacred 
and  more  or  less  obligatory,  were  established  in,  or  after 
this  period,  either  by  rabbinical  institution,  or  by  virtue  of 
the  oral  law  or  of  custom;  and  these  practices,  sanctioned 
by  long  usage  or  by  highly  esteemed  authorities,  had  no 
apparent  basis  in  the  written  law.  To  maintain  them  and 
give  them  solidity  in  the  regard  of  the  people,  it  was  natural 
to  seek  to  prove  by  exegesis  ad  hoc  that  the  Holy  Text  had 
imposed  or  recommended  them  in  advance,  if  not  expressly, 
at  least  by  hints  and  allusions  ....  The  application  of  this 
method  was  called  forth  not  only  by  the  religious  practices, 
but  also  by  the  ideas  and  opinions  that  had  been  formed  or 
developed  in  the  same  period.  After  the  Babylonian  Exile 
the  successive  influence  of  the  Chaldeans,  the  Persians,  and 
the  Greeks  produced  among  the  Jews  of  Asia  as  well  as 
among  the  Jews  of  Egypt  certain  theories  concerning  cos- 
mogony, angels,  and  the  government  of  the  world,  which 
rapidly  gained  credence,  and  were  generally  held  to  be  In- 
contestable. These  theories  provided  a  complete  apparatus 
of  doctrines  so  attractive  and  so  enthusiastically  accepted 
even  by  our  teachers,  that  the  people  could  not  resign  them- 
selves to  the  belief  that  they  were  not  contained  in  the 
Bible,  or,  worse  still,  that  they  were  contradicted  by  this 
store-house  of  wisdom  and  truth.  But  these  doctrines — for 
the  most  part,  at  least — are  not  to  be  found  in  the  literal 
text  of  the  Bible,  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  scholars  turned 
to  the  Midrashic  method  as  the  only  one  calculated  to  read 
the  desired  meaning  into  the  text. 

Now  the  general  character  of  Judaism  had  not 
changed  perceptibly  during  ten  centuries.  In  the 
eleventh  century  the  Jews  had  the  same  needs  as  in  the 
first,  and  the  same  method  of  satisfying  their  needs, 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTARIES        109 

They  found  it  quite  natural  to  bring  their  ideas  into 
agreement  with  the  Bible — or,  rather,  they  did  so  uncon- 
sciously— and  to  twist  the  text  from  its  natural  mean- 
ing, so  as  to  ascribe  to  the  Biblical  authors  their  own 
ideas  and  knowledge. 

Yet,  however  great  the  favor  attaching  to  this  method, 
the  Peshat  was  never  entirely  deprived  of  its  rights. 
It  was  even  destined  to  soar  high  into  prominence. 
The  appearance  of  the  Karaites  (eighth  century),  who 
rejected  the  Talmud  and  held  exclusively  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, brought  into  existence,  either  directly  or  in- 
directly, a  rational,  independent  method  of  exegesis, 
though  the  influence  of  this  sect  upon  the  development 
of  Biblical  studies  has  been  grossly  magnified.  It  was 
the  celebrated  Saadia  (892-942)  who  by  his  translation 
of,  and  commentary  upon,  the  Bible  opened  up  a  new 
period  in  the  history  of  exegesis,  during  which  the 
natural  method  was  applied  to  the  interpretation  of 
Biblical  texts.  The  productions  of  this  period  deserve  a 
commanding  position  in  Jewish  literature,  as  much  for 
their  intrinsic  value  as  for  their  number. 

While,  however,  in  the  countries  of  Arabic  culture, 
natural  exegesis  made  its  way  triumphantly,  in  the  coun- 
tries of  Christian  Europe,  it  freed  itself  from  the  tradi- 
tional Midrash  only  with  difficulty.  Moreover,  Derash — 
to  carry  a  Jewish  term  into  an  alien  field — was  the 
method  always  employed  by  the  Christian  theologians. 
Throughout  the  medieval  ages  they  adhered  chiefly 
to  a  spiritual,  allegoric,  moral,  and  mystic  interpre- 
tation. In  the  employment  of  this  method  the  literary, 
grammatical,  philologic,  and  historical  aspect  is  perforce 
neglected.  Nevertheless,  even  among  Christian  scholars 
8 


110  EASHI 

the  rational  method  found  some  worthy  representatives, 
especially  among  the  Belgian  masters.*1 

The  deplorable  ease  of  the  Midrashic  method  readily 
accounts  for  its  vogue.  The  Haggadist  is  not  compelled 
to  hold  fast  to  his  text,  his  imagination  has  free  play, 
and  is  untrammelled  by  the  leading-strings  of  grammar 
and  good  sense.  The  task  of  the  exegete  properly  so 
called  is  quite  different.  He  may  not  find  in  the  text 
anything  which  is  not  actually  there.  He  must  take 
heed  of  the  context,  of  the  probable,  and  of  the  rules  of 
the  language.  The  exegete  searches  for  the  idea  in  the 
text;  the  Haggadist  introduces  foreign  ideas  into  the 
text. 

"At  the  same  time,  whatever  the  attraction  of  the  Mi- 
drashic method  for  the  Jews  of  France  and  Germany,  and 
however  great  the  wealth  of  their  material,  neither  this 
attraction  nor  this  wealth  could  take  the  place  of  a  pure, 
simple  explanation  of  the  genuine  meaning  of  Scriptures, 
a  meaning  which  often  served  as  a  basis  for  the  Midrash, 
and  in  a  vast  number  of  cases  would  hare  remained  obscure 
and  incomplete.  Here  there  was  a  yawning  gap  in  an  essen- 
tial matter,  and  the  man  who  had  the  honor  of  filling  up 
this  gap — and  with  marvellous  success,  considering  the 
insufficiency  of  his  scientific  resources — was  one  of  the  most 
eminent  scholars  of  the  Synagogue,  the  leader  of  Jewish 
science,  Rashi."  w 

It  would  be  unjust  to  ignore  the  efforts  of  two  of 
Eashi's  predecessors,  Moses  ha-Darshan  (first  half  of 
the  eleventh  century)  and  Menahem  ben  Helbo,  who  pre- 
pared the  way  and  rendered  the  task  easier  for  him. 
The  principal  work  of  Moses  ha-Darshan,  often  cited 
by  Eashi  under  the  title  of  Yesod,  "  Foundation,"  is  a 
Haggadic  and  mystic  commentary,  giving,  however, 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTAEIES        111 

some  place  to  questions  of  grammar  and  of  the  natural 
construction  of  the  text.  As  to  Menahem  ben  Helbo, 
a  certain  number  of  his  explanations  and  fragments  of 
his  commentaries  have  been  preserved ;  but  Eashi  prob- 
ably knew  him  only  through  the  intermediation  of  his 
nephew  Joseph  Kara.  Following  the  example  of  Moses 
ha-Darshan  and  possibly,  also,  of  Menahem  ben  Helbo, 
Eashi  used  both  the  Peshat  and  the  Derash  in  his 
Biblical  commentaries.  "Eashi,"  says  Berliner,  "em- 
ployed an  in-between  method,  in  which  the  Peshat  and 
the  Derash  were  easily  united,  owing  to  the  care  he 
exercised,  to  choose  from  the  one  or  the  other  only  what 
most  directly  approximated  the  simple  meaning  of  the 
text.  Eashi  was  free  in  his  treatment  of  traditional 
legends,  now  transforming,  now  lengthening,  now 
abridging  them  or  joining  several  narratives  in  one, 
according  to  expediency." 

This  opinion  is  comprehensive;  but  it  is  necessary  to 
emphasize  and  differentiate. 

As  a  rule,  when  the  Midrash  does  no  violence  to  the 
text,  Eashi  adopts  its  interpretation;  and  when  there 
are  several  Midrashic  interpretations,  he  chooses  the  one 
that  accords  best  with  the  simple  sense;  but  he  is 
especially  apt  to  fall  back  upon  the  Midrash  when  the 
passage  does  not  offer  any  difficulties.  On  the  contrary, 
if  the  text  cannot  be  brought  into  harmony  with  the 
Midrash,  Eashi  frankly  declares  that  the  Midrashic 
interpretation  is  irreconcilable  with  the  natural  meaning 
or  with  the  laws  of  grammar.  He  also  rejects  the  Mi- 
drashic interpretation  if  it  does  not  conform  to  the 
context.  "A  passage,"  he  said,  "should  be  explained, 
not  detached  from  its  setting,  but  according  to  the  con- 


112  EASHI 

text."  In  other  cases  he  says,  "The  real  meaning  of 
the  verse  is  different,"  and  again,  "This  verse  admits 
of  a  Midrashic  interpretation,  but  I  do  not  pretend  to 
give  any  but  the  natural  meaning."  Kashi  was  fond 
of  repeating  the  following  Talmudic  saying,  which  he 
elevated  into  a  principle:  "A  verse  cannot  escape  its 
simple  meaning,  its  natural  acceptation."  Eashi,  then, 
cherished  a  real  predilection  for  rational  and  literal 
exegesis,  but  when  he  could  not  find  a  satisfactory  ex- 
planation according  to  this  method,  or  when  tradition 
offered  one,  he  resigned  himself  to  the  Haggadic  method, 
saying:  "This  verse  requires  an  explanation  according 
to  the  Midrash,  and  it  cannot  be  explained  in  any  other 
way." 

A  few  quotations  will  facilitate  the  comprehension 
of  this  characteristic  method. 

1.    CREATION  OF  THE  WORLD  (Genesis  i.  1) 

In  the  beginning].  R.  Isaac83  says:  The  Law  ought  to 
have  begun  with  the  rule  enjoining  the  celebration  of  Pass- 
over, which  is  the  first  of  the  Mosaic  precepts.  But  God 
"  showed  his  people  the  power  of  His  works,  that  He  may 
give  them  the  heritage  of  the  heathen."64  If  the  heathen 
nations  say  to  Israel:  You  are  robbers,  for  you  have  seized 
the  land  of  the  seven  nations  (Canaanites),  the  Israelites 
can  reply:  The  entire  earth  belongs  to  God,  who,  having 
created  it,  disposes  of  it  in  favor  of  whomsoever  it  pleases 
Him.  It  pleased  Him  to  give  it  to  the  seven  nations,  and 
it  pleased  Him  to  take  it  away  from  them  in  order  to  give 
it  to  us.  In  the  beginning,  etc.  Bereshit  bara].  This 
verse  should  be  interpreted  according  to  the  Midrash,  and 
it  is  in  this  way  that  our  rabbis  apply  it  to  the  Torah  as 
having  existed  "  before  His  works  of  old," M  or  to  Israel, 
called  "  the  first-fruits  of  His  increase."  M  But  if  one  wishes 
to  explain  these  words  in  their  natural  meaning,  it  is 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTARIES        113 

necessary  to  observe  the  following  method.  In  the  begin- 
ning of  the  creation  of  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  when 
the  earth  was  confusion  and  chaos,  God  said :  "  Let  there 
be  light."  This  verse  does  not  set  forth  the  order  of  the 
creation.  If  it  did,  the  word  n35?K"Q  would  have  been 
necessary,  whereas  the  word  JVL?fcO  is  always  in  the  con- 
struct, as  in  Jer.  xxvii.  1,  Gen.  x.  10,  Deut.  xviii.  4;  "  like- 
wise K~Q  must  here  be  taken  as  an  infinitive  fcTO;  the  same 
construction  occurs  in  Hosea  i.  2.  Shall  we  assert  that 
the  verse  intends  to  convey  that  such  a  thing  was  created 
before  another,  but  that  it  is  elliptical  (just  as  ellipses 
occur  in  Job  iii.  10,  Is.  viii.  4,  Amos  vi.  12,  Is.  xlvi.  10)  ? 
But  this  difficulty  arises:  that  which  existed  first  were  the 
waters,  since  the  following  verse  says,  that  "  the  Spirit  of 
God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters,"  and  since  the 
text  did  not  previously  speak  of  the  creation  of  the  waters, 
the  waters  must  perforce  have  preceded  the  land,  etc. 

Rashi's  exegesis  is  a  bit  complicated,  because  his 
beliefs  prevented  him  from  realizing  that  the  narrative 
of  Genesis  presupposes  a  primordial  chaos;  but  his 
explanations  are  ingenious,  and  do  away  with  other 
difficulties.  They  have  been  propounded  again  as 
original  explanations  by  modern  commentators,  such 
as  Ewald,  Bunsen,  Schrader,  Geiger,  etc.  Botticher 
even  proposed  the  reading  &ra.  I  did  not  give  the 
preceding  commentary  in  its  entirety,  because  it  is  fairly 
long  and,  in  this  respect,  not  typical.  Consequently, 
other  quotations  will  serve  a  purpose. 

2.    THE  SACRIFICE  OF  ISAAC  (Gen.  xxii.  1) 

1.  After  these  words].  Some  of  our  teachers  explain  the 
expression:  "after  the  words  of  Satan,"  who  said  to  God: 
Of  all  his  meals  Abraham  sacrifices  nothing  to  Thee,  neither 
a  bull  nor  a  ram.  He  would  sacrifice  his  son,  replied  God, 
if  I  told  him  to  do  it.  Others  say :  "  after  the  words  of 


114  EASHI 

Ishmael,"  who  boasted  of  having  undergone  circumcision 
when  he  was  thirteen  years  old,  and  to  whom  Isaac 
answered:  If  God  demanded  of  me  the  sacrifice  of  my  entire 
being,  I  would  do  what  he  demanded.  Abraham  said: 
Behold,  here  I  am].  Such  is  the  humility  of  pious  men; 
for  this  expression  indicates  that  one  is  humble,  ready  to 
obey. 

2.  God  said:  Take  now].  This  is  a  formula  of  prayer; 
God  seems  to  say  to  Abraham:  I  pray  thee,  submit  thyself 
to  this  test,  so  that  thy  faith  shall  not  be  doubted.  Thy 
son].  I  have  two  sons,  replied  Abraham.  Thine  only  son]. 
But  each  is  the  only  son  of  his  mother.  Whom  thou  lov- 
est].  I  love  them  both.  Isaac].  Why  did  not  God  name 
Isaac  immediately?  In  order  to  trouble  Abraham,  and  also 
to  reward  him  for  each  word,  etc. 

All  these  explanations  are  drawn  from  Talnmdic 
(Swhedrin  89b)  and  Midrashic  (Bereshit  Rdbba  and 
Tarihuma)  sources.  The  meaning  of  the  passage  being 
clear,  Eashi  has  recourse  to  Haggadic  elaborations, 
which,  it  must  be  admitted,  are  wholly  charming. 
Eashi  will  be  seen  to  be  more  original  in  his  commen- 
tary on  the  Song  of  the  Bed  Sea,  the  text  of  which 
offers  more  difficulties. 

3.  SONG  OF  THE  RED  SEA  (Ex.  xv.  1) 
1.  Then  sang  Moses].  "Then":  when  Moses  saw  the 
miracle,  he  had  the  idea  of  singing  a  song;  similar  construc- 
tion in  Josh.  x.  12,  I  Kings  vii.  8.  Moses  said  to  himself 
that  he  would  sing,  and  that  is  what  he  did.  Moses  and 
the  children  of  Israel  "spake,  saying,  I  will  sing  unto  the 
Lord."  The  future  tense  is  to  be  explained  in  the  same  way 
as  in  Josh.  x.  12  (Joshua,  seeing  the  miracle,  conceived  the 
idea  of  singing  a  song,  "  and  he  said  in  the  sight  of  Israel," 
etc.),  in  Num.  xxi.  17  ("  Then  Israel  sang  this  song,  Spring 
up,  O  well;  sing  ye  unto  it"),  and  in  I  Kings  xi.  7  (thus 
explained  by  the  sages  of  Israel:  "  Solomon  wished  to  build 
a  high  place,  but  he  did  not  build  it  ").  The  "  yod  "  (of  the 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTAEIES        115 

future)  applies  to  the  conception.  Such  is  the  natural  mean- 
ing of  the  verse.  But,  according  to  the  Midrashic  interpre- 
tation, our  rabbis  see  in  it  an  allusion  to  the  resurrection, 
and  they  explain  it  in  the  same  fashion  as  the  other  pas- 
sages, with  the  exception  of  the  verse  in  Kings,  which  they 
translate :  "  Solomon  wished  to  build  a  high  place,  but  he  did 
not  build  it."  But  our  verse  cannot  be  explained  like  those 
in  which  the  future  is  employed,  although  the  action  takes 
place  immediately,  as  in  Job  i.  5  ("  Thus  did  Job  ") ;  Num. 
ix.  23  ("The  Israelites  rested  in  their  tents  at  the  com- 
mandment of  the  Lord")  and  20  ("when  the  cloud  was  a 
few  days  "),  because  here  the  action  is  continued  and  is  ex- 
pressed as  well  by  the  future  as  by  the  past.  But  our  song 
having  been  sung  only  at  a  certain  moment,  the  explanation 
does  not  apply. 

HK3  n'M  *3  ].  As  the  Targum M  translates.  Another  ex- 
planation :  "  He  is  most  exalted,"  above  all  praise,  and 
however  numerous  our  eulogies,  I  could  add  to  them;  such 
is  not  the  human  king  whom  one  praises  without  reason. 
The  horse  and  his  rider].  The  one  attached  to  the  other; 
the  waters  carried  them  off  and  they  descended  together 
into  the  sea.  HD1(hath  He  thrown)]  like  "p^BTi  ;  the  same 
as  in  Dan.  ill.  21.  The  Haggadic  Midrash 6!>  gives  this  ex- 
planation: one  verse  employs  the  verb  m\  the  other  the 
verb  HOT,  which  teaches  us  that  the  Egyptians  mounted  into 
the  air  in  order  then  to  descend  into  the  ocean.  The  same 
as  in  Job  xxxviii.  6,  "who  laid  (  JTV)  the  corner  stone 
thereof"  from  top  to  bottom? 

2.  niMt?^  ^  vn  rv  m»n  nm.  Onkelos  translates:  my 
strength  and  my  song  of  praise.  He  therefore  explains  *\D 
as  W  and  mon  as  'm»T1.  But  I  am  astonished  at  the 
voweiling  of  the  first  word,  which  is  unique  in  Scriptures, 
if  an  exception  is  made  of  the  three  passages  in  which  the 
two  words  are  joined.  In  all  other  places  it  is  provided 
with  the  vowel  "  u  ",  for  example  in  Jer.  xvi.  19  and  Psalms 
lix.  10.  In  general,  when  a  word  of  two  letters  contains  the 
vowel  "  o  ",  if  it  is  lengthened  by  a  third  letter,  and  if  the 
second  letter  has  no  "sheva",  the  first  takes  an  "u":  lb 


116  EASHI 

makes  Ml?,  pi  makes  *|?1,  ph  makes  »j?n,  VjJ  makes  1^>»  70 
^3  makes  1^3,  as  in  Exodus  xir.  7.  On  the  contrary,  the 
three  other  passages,  namely,  our  passage,  the  one  in  Is. 
(xii.  2),  and  that  in  Psalms  (cxviii.  14),  have  W  vowelled 
with  a  short  "  o  ";  moreover,  these  verses  do  not  have  »mDt! 
but  rn»n,  and  all  continue  with  ftVttrh  'h  W1.  And  to 
give  a  full  explanation  of  this  verse,  it  is  in  my  opinion 
necessary  to  say  that  VV  is  not  equivalent  to  ">W  nor  niDTI 
to  *mDNi  but  that  Mtf  is  a  substantive  (without  a  posses- 
sive suffix,  but  provided  with  a  paragogic  "yod"),  as  in 
Psalm  cxxiii.  1,  Obadiah  3,  Deut  xxxiii.  16.  The  eulogy 
(of  the  Hebrews)  therefore  signifies:  It  is  the  strength  and 
the  vengeance  of  God  that  have  been  my  salvation.  moil 
is  thus  in  the  construct  with  the  word  God,  exactly  as  in 
Judges  v.  23,  Is.  ix.  18,  Eccl.  iii.  18.  As  for  the  word  men, 
it  has  the  meaning  which  the  same  root  has  in  Lev.  XXT.  4 
("thou  shalt  not  prune")  and  in  Is.  xxv.  5;  that  is  to 
say,  "to  cut".  The  meaning  of  our  verse,  then,  is:  "The 
strength  and  the  vengeance  of  our  Lord  have  been  our  sal- 
vation." One  must  not  be  astonished  that  the  text  uses 
MM  (imperfect  changed  to  past)  and  not  rpn  (perfect) :  for 
the  same  construction  occurs  in  other  verses;  for  example, 
I  Kings  vi.  5,  II  Chron.  x.  17  n,  Num.  xiv.  16  and  36,  Ex. 
ix.  21. 

He  is  my  God].  He  appeared  to  them  in  His  majesty, 
and  they  pointed  Him  out  to  one  another  with  their 
finger."  The  last  of  the  servants  saw  God,  on  this  occasion, 
as  the  Prophets  themselves  never  saw  Him.  lilU&O  1.  The 
Targum  sees  in  this  word  the  meaning  of  "  habitation "  n 
as  in  Is.  xxxiii.  20,  Ixv.  10.  According  to  another  explana- 
tion the  word  signifies  "  to  adorn,"  and  the  meaning  would 
be:  "I  wish  to  celebrate  the  beauty  and  sing  the  praise  of 
God  in  all  His  creatures,"  as  it  is  developed  in  the  Song  of 
Songs;  see  v.  9  et  seq."  My  father's  God],  He  is;  and 
I  witt  exalt  Him.  My  father's  God],  I  am  not  the  first 
who  received  this  consecration;  but  on  the  contrary  His 
holiness  and  His  divinity  have  continued  to  rest  upon  me 
from  the  time  of  my  ancestors. 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTAEIES        117 

In  the  above  the  text  calls  only  for  the  embellishments 
of  the  Haggadah.  In  the  following  passage  from  Eashi's 
commentaries  the  place  allotted  to  Derash  is  more  lim- 
ited. 

4.   CONSTBUCTION  OF  THE  TABERNACLE    (EX.   XXV.   1  et  S6Q.) 

2.  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  that  they  bring 
me   an   offering].     To    me;    in    my   honor.     An   offering 
(  nonn),  a  levy;  let  them  make  a  levy  upon  their  goods. 
Of   every   man   that   giveth   it   willingly   with   his   heart 
(  UTV  )],  same  meaning  as     rQIJi  that  is  to  say,  a  volun- 
tary and  spontaneous  gift."     Ye  shall  take  my  offering]. 
Our  sages  say:  Three  offerings  are  prescribed  by  this  pas- 
sage, one  of  a  beka  from  each  person,  used  for  a  pedestal, 
as  will  be  shown  in  detail  in  Eleh  Pekude n;  the  second, 
the  contribution  of  the  altar,  consisting  of  a  beka  from  each 
person,  thrown  into  the  coffers  for  the  purchase  of  congre- 
gational  sacrifices;  and,   third,    the    contribution   for    the 
Tabernacle,  a  free-will  offering.    The  thirteen  kinds  of  ma- 
terial to  be  mentioned  were  all  necessary  for  the  construc- 
tion of  the  Tabernacle  and  for  the  making  of  priestly  vest- 
ments, as  will  be  evident  from  a  close  examination. 

3.  Gold,  and  silver,  and  brass].    All  these  were  offered 
voluntarily,  each  man  giving  what  he  wished,  except  silver, 
of  which  each  brought  the  same  quantity,  a  half-shekel  a 
person.    In  the  entire  passage  relating  to  the  construction 
of   the  Tabernacle,  we  do  not   see   that   more   silver  was 
needed;  this  is  shown  by  Ex.  xxxviii.  27.    The  rest  of  the 
silver,  voluntarily  offered,  was  used  for  making  the  sacred 
vessels. 

4.  n?3n  ].   Wool  dyed  in  the  blood  of  the  halazon"  and 
of  a  greenish  color.  JDilfcO   ].    Wool  dyed  with  a  sort  of 
coloring  matter  bearing  this  name.     Bt?1].    Linen. 
Goats'    hair;    this  is  why  Onkelos  translates  it  by 

but  not  "goats,"  which  he  would  have  rendered  by 

5.  And  rams'  skins  dyed  red].     Dyed  red  after  having 
been  dressed.     DH?nn]     A  sort  of  animal  created  for  the 
purpose  and  having  various  colors;  that  is  why  the  Tar- 


118  KASHI 

gum  translates  the  word  by  K31JDD*,  "he  rejoices  in  his 
colors  and  boasts  of  them."7*  And  shittim  wood].  But 
whence  did  the  Israelites  in  the  desert  obtain  it?  R.  Tan- 
huma  explains:  The  patriarch  Jacob,  thanks  to  a  Divine 
revelation,  had  foreseen  that  one  day  his  descendants  would 
construct  a  Tabernacle  in  the  desert.  He,  therefore,  carried 
shittim  trees  into  Egypt,  and  planted  them  there,  advising 
his  sons  to  take  them  along  with  them  when  they  left  the 
country. 

6.  Oil  for  the  light],  "Pure  oil  olive  beaten  for  the 
light,  to  cause  the  lamp  to  burn  always.""  Spices  for 
anointing  oil].  Prepared  for  the  purpose  of  anointing 
both  the  vessels  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  Tabernacle  itself. 
Spices  entered  into  the  composition  of  this  oil,  as  is  said  in 
Ki-Tissa.*0  And  for  sweet  incense]  which  was  burned 
night  and  morning,  as  is  described  in  detail  in  Tezaweh.*1  As 
to  the  word  mop,  it  comes  from  the  rising  of  the  smoke 


7.  Onyx  stones].  Two  were  needed  for  the  ephod,  de- 
scribed in  Tezaweh.*1  And  stones  to  6e  set]  for  an  ouch 
of  gold  was  made  in  which  the  stones  were  set,  entirely  fill- 
ing it.  These  stones  are  called  "  stones  to  be  set."  As  to 
the  bezel  it  is  called  nX25?D.  In  the  ephod,  and  in  the 
breastplate].  Onyx  stones  for  the  ephod  and  "stones  to  be 
set"  for  the  breastplate.  The  breastplate  as  well  as  the 
ephod  are  described  in  Tezaweh  M;  they  are  two  sorts  of 
ornaments. 

If  these  citations  did  not  suffice,  his  anti-Christian 
polemics  would  furnish  ample  evidence  of  the  wise  use 
Eashi  made  of  the  Peshat.  The  word  polemics,  per- 
haps, is  not  exact.  Rashi  does  not  make  assaults  upon 
Christianity;  he  contents  himself  with  showing  that  a 
verse  which  the  Church  has  adopted  for  its  own  ends, 
when  rationally  interpreted,  has  an  entirely  different 
meaning  and  application.  Only  to  this  extent  can  Eashi 
be  said  to  have  written  polemics  against  the  Christians. 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTARIES        119 

However  that  may  be,  no  other  course  is  possible ;  for  the 
history  of  Adam  and  Eve  or  the  blessing  of  Jacob  cannot 
be  explained,  unless  one  takes  a  stand  for  or  against 
Christianity.  It  was  not  difficult  to  refute  Christian 
doctrines;  Rashi  could  easily  dispose  of  the  stupid  or 
extravagant  inventions  of  Christian  exegesis.  Some- 
times he  does  not  name  the  adversaries  against  whom 
he  aimed;  sometimes  he  openly  says  he  has  in  view  the 
Minim  or  "  Sectaries/'  that  is,  the  Christians.  The 
Church,  it  is  well  known,  transformed  chiefly  the 
Psalms  into  predictions  of  Christianity.  In  order  to 
ward  off  such  an  interpretation  and  not  to  expose  them- 
selves to  criticism,  many  Jewish  exegetes  gave  up  that 
explanation  of  the  Psalms  by  which  they  are  held  to  be 
proclamations  of  the  Messianic  era,  and  would  see  in 
them  allusions  only  to  historic  facts.  Rashi  followed 
this  tendency ;  and  for  this  reason,  perhaps,  his  commen- 
tary on  the  Psalms  is  one  of  the  most  satisfying  from 
a  scientific  point  of  view.  For  instance,  he  formally 
states :  "  Our  masters  apply  this  passage  to  the 
Messiah;  but  in  order  to  refute  the  Minim,  it  is  better 
to  apply  it  to  David." 

One  would  wish  that  Rashi  had  on  all  occasions 
sought  the  simple  and  natural  meaning  of  the  Biblical 
text.  That  he  clothed  the  Song  of  Songs,  in  part  at 
least,  in  a  mantle  of  allegory,  is  excusable,  since  he  was 
authorized,  nay,  obliged,  to  do  so  by  tradition.  In  the 
Proverbs  this  manner  is  less  tolerable.  The  book  is 
essentially  secular  in  character ;  but  Rashi  could  not  take 
it  in  this  way.  To  him  it  was  an  allegory ;  and  he  trans- 
formed this  manual  of  practical  wisdom  into  a  pro- 
longed conversation  between  the  Torah  and  Israel. 


120  EASHI 

Again,  though  Rashi  discriminated  among  the  Midra- 
shim,  and  adopted  only  those  that  seemed  reconcilable 
with  the  natural  meaning,  his  commentaries  none  the 
less  resemble  Haggadic  compilations.  This  is  true, 
above  all,  of  the  Pentateuch.  And  if  the  Haggadah  "  so 
far  as  religion  is  concerned  was  based  upon  the  oral  law, 
and  from  an  esthetic  point  of  view  upon  the  apparent  im- 
proprieties of  the  Divine  word,"  it  nevertheless  "  serves 
as  a  pretext  rather  than  a  text  for  the  flights,  some- 
times the  caprice  or  digressions,  of  religious  thought." l 
Now,  Kashi  was  so  faithful  to  the  spirit  of  the  Midrash 
that  he  accepted  without  wincing  the  most  curious  and 
shocking  explanations,  or,  if  he  rejected  them,  it  was 
not  because  he  found  fault  with  the  explanations  them- 
selves. Sometimes,  when  we  see  him  balance  the  simple 
construction  against  the  Midrashic  interpretation  of  the 
text,  we  are  annoyed  to  feel  how  he  is  drawn  in  opposite 
directions  by  two  tendencies.  We  realize  that  in  con- 
sequence his  works  suffer  from  a  certain  incoherence, 
or  lack  of  equilibrium,  that  they  are  uneven  and  mixed 
in  character.  To  recognize  that  he  paid  tribute  to  the 
taste  of  the  age,  or  yielded  to  the  attraction  the  Midrash 
exercised  upon  a  soul  of  na'ive  faith,  is  not  sufficient,  for 
in  point  of  fact  he  pursued  the  two  methods  at  the  same 
time,  the  method  of  literal  and  the  method  of  free 
interpretation,  seeming  to  have  considered  them  equally 
legitimate  and  fruitful  of  results.  Often,  it  is  true,  he 
shakes  off  the  authority  of  tradition,  and  we  naturally 
query  why  his  good  sense  did  not  always  assert  itself, 
and  free  him  from  the  tentacles  of  the  Talmud  and  the 
Midrash. 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTARIES        121 

Now  that  we  have  formulated  our  grievance  against 
Rashi,  it  is  fair  that  we  try  to  justify  him  by  recalling 
the  ideas  prevailing  at  the  time,  and  the  needs  he  wished 
to  satisfy. 

The  Midrashim,  as  I  have  said,  have  a  double  object, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  exposition  of  legal  and  religious 
practices,  on  the  other  hand,  the  exposition  of  the  beliefs 
and  hopes  of  religion.  So  far  as  the  Halakic  Midrash 
is  concerned,  it  was  marvellously  well  adapted  to  the 
French-Jewish  intellect,  penetrated  as  it  was  by  Tal- 
mudism.  The  study  of  the  Talmud  so  completely  filled 
the  lives  of  the  Jews  that  it  was  difficult  to  break  away 
from  the  rabbinical  method.  Rashi  did  not  see  in  the 
Bible  a  literary  or  philosophic  masterpiece.  Nor  did  he 
study  it  with  the  unprejudiced  eyes  of  the  scholar.  He 
devoted  himself  to  this  study — especially  of  the  Penta- 
teuch— with  only  the  one  aim  in  view,  that  of  finding 
the  origin  or  the  explanation  of  civil  and  ritual  laws, 
the  basis  or  the  indication  of  Talmudic  precepts.  Some- 
times he  kicked  against  the  pricks.  When  convinced 
that  the  rabbinical  explanation  did  not  agree  with  a 
sane  exegesis,  he  would  place  himself  at  variance  with 
the  Talmud  for  the  sake  of  a  rational  interpretation. 
What  more  than  this  can  be  expected?  Nor  need  we 
think  of  him  as  the  unwilling  prisoner  of  rules  and  a 
victim  of  their  tyranny.  On  the  contrary,  he  adapted 
himself  to  them  perfectly,  and  believed  that  the  Midrash 
could  be  made  to  conform  to  its  meaning  without  vio- 
lence to  the  text.  That  he  always  had  reason  to  believe 
so  was  denied  by  so  early  a  successor  as  his  grandson 
Samuel  ben  Meiir.  Samuel  insisted  that  one  stand  face 
to  face  with  the  Scriptures  and  interpret  them  without 


122  KASHI 

paying  heed  and  having  recourse  to  any  other  work. 
This  effort  at  intellectual  independence  in  which  the 
grandson  nearly  always  succeeded,  the  grandfather  was 
often  incapable  of  making.  In  commenting  upon  the 
Talmud  Kashi  preserved  his  entire  liberty,  unrestrained 
by  the  weight  of  any  absolute  authority;  but  in  com- 
menting on  the  Bible  he  felt  himself  bound  by  the 
Talmud  and  the  Midrash.  Especially  in  regard  to  the 
Pentateuch,  the  Talmudic  interpretation  was  unavoid- 
able, because  the  Pentateuch  either  explicitly  or  impli- 
citly contains  all  legal  prescriptions.  In  point  of  fact, 
in  leaving  the  Pentateuch  and  proceeding  to  other  parts 
of  the  Bible,  he  gains  in  force  because  he  gains  in  inde- 
pendence. He  no  longer  fears  to  confront  "  our  sages  " 
with  the  true  explanation.  For  example,  there  is  little 
Derash  in  the  following  commentary  on  Psalm  xxiii : 

A  Psalm  of  David}.  Our  rabbis  say:  The  formula 
"  Psalm  of  David  "  indicates  that  David  at  first  played  the 
instrument,  then  was  favored  by  Divine  inspiration.  It, 
therefore,  signifies,  Psalm  to  give  inspiration  to  David.  On 
the  other  hand,  when  it  is  said  "  To  David,  a  Psalm," 85  the 
formula  indicates  that  David,  having  received  Divine  inspi- 
ration, sang  a  song  in  consequence  of  the  revelation. 

1.  The  Lord  is  my  Shepherd;  I  shall  not  want].     In 
this  desert  in  which  I  wander  I  am  full  of  trust,  sure  that 
I  shall  lack  nothing. 

2.  He  maketh  me  to  lie  down  in  green  pastures].     In 
a  place  to  dwell  where  grass  grows.    The  poet,  having  be- 
gun by  comparing  his  sustenance  to  the  pasturing  of  ani- 
mals, in  the  words,  "  The  Lord  is  my  Shepherd,"  continues 
the  image.    This  Psalm  was  recited  by  David  in  the  forest 
of  Hereth,  which  was   so  called  because  it  was  arid  as 
clay  (heres),  but  it  was  watered  by  God  with  all  the  delights 
of  the  next  world  (Midrash  on  the  Psalms). 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTAEIES         123 

3.  He  will  restore  my  soul].  My  soul,  benumbed  by 
misfortunes  and  by  my  flight,  He  will  restore  to  its  former 
estate.  He  will  lead  me  in  the  paths  of  righteousness] 
along  the  straight  highway  so  that  I  may  not  fall  into  the 
hands  of  my  enemies. 

4.  Tea,  though  I  walk  through  the  valley  of  the  shadow 
of  death,  I  will  fear  no  evil].  In  the  country  of  shadows; 
this  applies  to  the  wilderness  of  Ziph.89  The  word  nioW 
here  employed  always  signifies  "utter  darkness"87;  this 
is  the  way  in  which  it  is  explained  by  Dunash  ben  Labrat.8* 
Thy  rod  and  thy  staff  they  comfort  me].  The  sufferings 
I  have  undergone  and  my  reliance,  my  trust,  in  Thy  good- 
ness are  my  two  consolations,  for  they  bring  me  pardon  for 
my  faults,  and  I  am  sure  that 

5.  Thou  wilt  prepare  a  taole  before  me],  that  is,  roy- 
alty. Thou  hast  anointed  my  head  with  oil].  I  have 
already  been  consecrated  king  at  Thy  command.  My  cup 
runneth  over].  An  expression  signifying  abundance. 

From  this  commentary  one  realizes,  I  do  not  say  the 
perfection,  but  the  simplicity,  Eashi  could  attain  when 
he  was  not  obliged  to  discover  in  Scriptures  allusions 
to  laws  or  to  beliefs  foreign  to  the  text.  As  Mendels- 
sohn said  of  him,  "  No  one  is  comparable  with  him  when 
he  writes  Peshat."  Even  though  Eashi  gave  too  much 
space  to  the  legal  exegesis  of  the  Talmud,  Mendels- 
sohn's example  will  make  us  more  tolerant  toward  him 
— Mendelssohn  who  himself  could  not  always  steer  clear 
of  this  method. 

Moreover,  the  commentary  on  the  Bible  is  not  exactly 
a  scholarly  work;  it  is  above  all  a  devotional  work, 
written,  as  the  Germans  say,  fur  Schule  und  Haus,  for 
the  school  and  the  family.  The  masses,  to  whom  Eashi 
addressed  himself,  were  not  so  cultivated  that  he  could 
confine  himself  to  a  purely  grammatical  exposition  or 


124  EASHI 

to  bare  exegesis.  He  had  to  introduce  fascinating 
legends,  subtle  deductions,  ingenious  comparisons.  The 
Bible  was  studied,  not  so  much  for  its  own  sake,  as  for 
the  fact  that  it  was  the  text-book  of  morality,  the  foun- 
dation of  belief,  the  source  of  all  hopes.  Every  thought, 
every  feeling  bore  an  intimate  relation  to  Scriptures. 
The  Midrash  exercised  an  irresistible  attraction  upon 
simple,  deeply  devout  souls.  It  appealed  to  the  heart  as 
well  as  to  the  intelligence,  and  in  vivid,  attractive  form 
set  forth  religious  and  moral  truths.  Granted  that 
success  justifies  everything,  then  the  very  method  with 
which  we  reproach  Eashi  explains  the  fact  that  he  has 
had,  and  continues  to  have,  thousands  of  readers.  The 
progress  of  scientific  exegesis  has  made  us  aware  of 
what  we  would  now  consider  a  serious  mistake  in  method. 
We  readily  understand  why  Derash  plays  so  important 
a  role  in  Eashi's  commentaries,  and  to  what  require- 
ments he  responded;  but  that  does  not  make  us  any 
more  content  with  his  method.  To  turn  from  Eashi 
to  a  more  general  consideration  of  the  Midrashic  exe- 
gesis, we  also  understand  its  long  continuance,  though 
we  do  not  deprecate  it  less,  because  it  is  unscientific  and 
irrational. 

In  spite  of  all,  however,  the  use  of  the  Derash  must  be 
considered  a  virtue  in  Eashi.  Writing  before  the  author 
of  the  Yalkut  Shimeoni,*'  he  revealed  to  his  contem- 
poraries, among  whom  not  only  the  masses  are  to  be 
included,  but,  owing  to  the  rarity  of  books,  scholars  as 
well,  a  vast  number  of  legends  and  traditions,  which 
have  entered  into  the  very  being  of  the  people,  and  have 
been  adopted  as  their  own.  Eashi  not  only  popularized 
numerous  Midrashim,  but  he  also  preserved  a  number 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTARIES        125 

the  sources  of  which  are  no  longer  extant,  and  which 
without  him  would  be  unknown.  His  Biblical  commen- 
tary is  thus  the  store-house  of  Midrashic  literature,  the 
aftermath  of  that  luxuriant  growth  whose  latest  pro- 
ducts ripened  in  the  eighth,  ninth,  and  even  tenth 
centuries. 

It  is  hardly  proper,  then,  to  be  unduly  severe  in  our 
judgment  of  Rashi's  work.  In  fact,  why  insist  on  his 
faults,  since  he  himself  recognized  the  imperfections  of 
his  work,  and  would  have  bettered  them  if  he  had  had 
the  time?  The  testimony  of  his  grandson  upon  this 
point  is  explicit : 

"  The  friends  of  reason,"  said  Samuel  ben  Mei'r,  "  should 
steep  themselves  in  this  principle  of  our  sages,  that  natural 
exegesis  can  never  be  superseded.  It  is  true  that  the  chief 
aim  of  the  Torah  was  to  outline  for  us  rules  of  religious 
conduct,  which  we  discover  behind  the  literal  meaning 
through  Haggadic  and  Halakic  interpretation.  And  the 
ancients,  moved  by  their  piety,  occupied  themselves  only 
with  Midrashic  exegesis  as  being  the  most  important,  and 
they  failed  to  dwell  at  great  length  upon  the  literal  mean- 
ing. Add  to  this  the  fact  that  the  scholars  advise  us  not  to 
philosophize  too  much  upon  the  Scriptures.  And  R.  Solo- 
mon, my  maternal  grandfather,  the  Torch  of  the  Captivity, 
who  commented  on  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Hagio- 
grapha,  devoted  himself  to  the  development  of  the  natural 
meaning  of  the  text;  and  I,  Samuel  son  of  Meir,  discussed 
his  explanations  with  him  and  before  him,  and  he  confessed 
to  me  that  if  he  had  had  the  leisure,  he  would  have  deemed 
it  necessary  to  do  his  work  all  over  again  by  availing  him- 
self of  the  explanations  that  suggest  themselves  day  after 
day."  * 

It  seems,  therefore,  that  Rashi  only  gradually,  as  the 
result  of  experience  and  discussion,  attained  to  a  full 
9 


126  KASHI 

consciousness  of  the  requirements  of  a  sound  exegesis 
and  the  duties  of  a  Biblical  commentator.  What  the 
grandfather  had  not  been  able  to  do  was  accomplished 
by  the  grandson.  The  commentary  of  Samuel  ben  Me'ir 
realized  Eashi's  resolutions.  Though  Eashi  may  not 
have  been  irreproachable  as  a  commentator,  he  at  least 
pointed  out  the  way,  and  his  successors,  enlightened  by 
his  example,  could  elaborate  his  method  and  surpass  it, 
but  only  with  the  means  with  which  he  provided  them. 
We  must  take  into  account  that  he  was  almost  an  origi- 
nator, and  we  readily  overlook  many  faults  and  flaws  in 
remembering  that  he  was  the  first  to  prepare  the 
material. 


Grammar  and  lexicography  are  the  two  bases  of  exe- 
gesis. Eashi  was  as  clever  a  grammarian  as  was  possible 
in  his  time  and  in  his  country.  At  all  events  he  was 
not  of  the  same  opinion  as  the  Pope,  who  rebuked  the 
Archbishop  of  Vienna  for  having  taught  grammar  in  his 
schools,  because,  he  said,  it  seemed  to  him  rules  of  gram- 
mar were  not  worthy  the  Sacred  Text,  and  it  was 
unfitting  to  subject  the  language  of  Holy  Scriptures  to 
these  rules.  Eashi  in  his  explanations  pays  regard  to 
the  laws  of  language,  and  in  both  his  Talmudic  and 
Biblical  commentaries,  he  frequently  formulates  scien- 
tific laws,  or,  it  might  be  said,  empiric  rules,  regarding, 
for  instance,  distinctions  in  the  usage  of  words  indicated 
by  the  position  of  the  accent,  different  meanings  of  the 
same  particle,  certain  vowel  changes,  and  so  on.  Thus, 
we  have  been  able  to  construct  a  grammar  of  Eashi, 
somewhat  rudimentary,  but  very  advanced  for  the  time. 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTAEIES 


Nevertheless,  in  this  regard,  a  wide  gap  separates  the 
commentaries  of  Eashi  and  the  works  of  the  Spanish 
school  of  exegetes,  which  shone  with  such  lustre  in  that 
epoch.  Under  the  influence  and  stimulus  of  the  Arabs, 
scientific  studies  took  an  upward  flight  among  the  Jews 
of  Moslem  Spain.  The  Midrash  was  abandoned  to  the 
preachers,  while  the  scholars  cultivated  the  Hebrew 
language  and  literature  with  fruitful  results.  In 
France,  on  the  contrary,  though  rabbinical  studies  were 
already  flourishing,  the  same  is  not  true  of  philological 
studies,  which  were  introduced  into  France  only  through 
the  influence  of  the  Spaniards.  French  scholars  soon 
came  to  know  the  works,  written  in  Hebrew,  of  Mena- 
hem  ben  Saruk  and  Dunash  ben  Labrat,"1  and  Eashi 
availed  himself  of  them  frequently,  and  not  always 
uncritically.  Thus,  like  them,  he  distinguishes  trilateral, 
biliteral,  and  even  uniliteral  roots  ;  but  contrary  to  them, 
he  maintains  that  contracted  and  quiescent  verbs  are 
triliteral  and  not  biliteral.  Unfortunately,  he  could 
have  no  knowledge  of  the  more  important  works  of 
Hayyoudj,  "father  of  grammarians,"  and  of  Ibn 
Djanah,  who  carried  the  study  of  Hebrew  to  a  perfection 
surpassed  only  by  the  moderns  ;  n  for  these  works  were 
written  in  Arabic,  and  the  translations  into  Hebrew, 
made  by  the  scholars  of  Southern  France,  did  not  appear 
until  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries.  Though  the 
Spanish  Jews  did  not  yet  cultivate  the  allegoric  and 
mystic  exegesis,  their  philosophic  sense  was  rather  re- 
fined and  they  did  not  always  approach  the  study  of  the 
Bible  without  seeking  something  not  clearly  expressed 
in  the  text,  without  arriere-pensee,  so  to  speak.  Kashi's 


128  EASHI 

exegesis  was  more  ingenuous  and,  therefore,  more  ob- 
jective. 

Moreover,  even  if  Eashi  was  not  in  complete  posses- 
sion of  grammatical  rules,  he  had  perfectly  mastered 
the  spirit  of  the  Hebrew  language.  Like  the  Spaniards, 
he  had  that  very  fine  understanding  for  the  genius  of 
the  language  which  arises  from  persevering  study,  from 
constant  occupation  with  its  literature.  We  have  cited 
the  sources  upon  which  he  drew ;  it  would  be  unjust  not 
to  remark  that  he  made  original  investigations.  For 
example  (and  the  examples  might  be  multiplied) 
apropos  of  a  difficult  passage  in  Ezekiel,  he  asserted  that 
he  had  drawn  the  explanation  from  inner  stores,  and 
had  been  guided  only  by  Divine  inspiration — a  formula 
borrowed  from  the  Geonim.  He  was  frequently  con- 
sulted in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  Biblical  passages,  and 
one  response  has  been  preserved,  that  given  to  the 
scholars  of  Auxerre  when  they  asked  for  an  explanation 
of  several  chapters  of  the  Prophets.  This  fact  shows 
that  the  Jews  gave  themselves  up  with  ardor  to  the 
study  of  the  Bible,  men  of  education  making  it  their 
duty  to  copy  the  Bible  with  the  most  scrupulous  care 
and  according  to  the  best  models,  to  the  number  of  which 
they  thus  made  additions.  Among  these  copies  are  the 
ones  made  by  Gershom,  by  Joseph  Tob  Elem,  and  by 
Menahem  of  Joigny.  The  Jews  were  almost  the  only 
persons  versed  in  the  Bible.  I  have  mentioned  how 
much  the  Church  feared  the  sight  of  the  Bible  in  the 
hands  of  the  common  people,  and  in  clerical  circles  an 
absolutely  anti-scientific  spirit  reigned  in  regard  to  these 
matters.  It  was  the  triumph  of  symbolism,  allegory, 
and  docetism.  All  the  less  likely,  then,  were  they  to 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTAEIES        129 

know  Hebrew.  An  exception  was  the  monk  Sigebert 
de  Gemblours,  a  teacher  at  Metz  in  the  last  quarter  of 
the  eleventh,  century,  -who  maintained  relations  with 
Jewish  scholars.  He  is  said  to  have  known  Hebrew. 

Bashi's  thorough  knowledge  of  Hebrew  enabled  him 
to  depend  upon  his  memory  for  quoting  the  appropriate 
verses,  and  in  all  his  citations  there  is  scarcely  a  mistake, 
natural  though  an  error  would  have  been  in  quoting 
from  memory.  Distinguishing  between  the  Hebrew  of 
the  Bible  and  that  of  the  Talmud,  he  sees  in  the  Hebrew 
of  the  Mishnah  a  transition  between  the  two.  Often,  for 
the  purpose  of  explaining  a  word  in  the  Bible,  he  has 
recourse  to  Talmudic  Hebrew  or  to  the  Aramaic.  He 
pays  careful  attention  to  the  precise  meaning  of  words 
and  to  distinctions  among  synonyms,  and  he  had  per- 
ception for  delicate  shading  in  syntax  and  vocabulary. 
Owing  to  this  thorough  knowledge  of  Hebrew  he  readily 
obtained  insight  into  the  true  sense  of  the  text.  By 
subjecting  the  thought  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  a 
simple  and  entirely  rational  examination,  he  not  seldom 
succeeds  in  determining  it.  Thus,  as  it  were  by  divin- 
ation, he  lighted  upon  the  meaning  of  numerous  Biblical 
passages.  A  long  list  might  be  made  of  explanations 
misunderstood  by  his  successors,  and  revived,  consciously 
or  unconsciously,  by  modern  exegetes.  An  illustration 
in  point  is  his  explanation  of  the  first  verse  of  Genesis, 
quoted  above.  Long  before  such  Biblical  criticism  had 
become  current  it  was  he  who  said  that  the  "  servant  of 
God  "  mentioned  in  certain  chapters  of  the  second  part 
of  Isaiah  represents  the  people  of  Israel. 

Needless  to  say  Kashi  never  tampers  with  the  text. 
At  most,  as  is  the  case  with  Ibn  Djanah,  he  says  that 


130  RASEI 

a  letter  is  missing  or  is  superfluous.  Sometimes,  too, 
he  changes  the  order  of  the  words.  Neither  copyists' 
mistakes  nor  grammatical  anomalies  existed  for  him. 
Yet  he  believed  in  all  sincerity  that  the  ancient  sages 
could  have  corrected  certain  Biblical  texts  to  remove 
from  them  a  meaning  startling  or  derogatory  when 
applied  to  the  Divinity. 

Rashi  wholly  ignored  what  modern  criticism  calls  the 
Introduction  to  the  Scriptures,  that  is  to  say,  the  study 
of  the  Bible  and  the  books  of  which  it  is  composed  from 
the  point  of  view  of  their  origin,  their  value,  and  the 
changes  they  have  undergone.  But  rarely,  here  and 
there  in  his  commentaries,  does  one  find  any  references 
to  the  formation  of  the  canon.  To  give  an  example 
showing  how  he  justified  a  classification  of  the  Hagio- 
grapha  given  by  a  Talmudic  text  and  disagreeing  with 
the  present  classification:  Ruth  comes  first,  because  it 
belongs  to  the  period  of  the  Judges ;  Job  follows,  because 
he  lived  at  the  time  of  the  Queen  of  Sheba;  then  come 
the  three  books  of  Solomon,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  both 
gnomic  works,  and  the  Song  of  Songs,  written  in 
Solomon's  old  age;  Lamentations,  Daniel,  Esther,  Ezra 
(comprising  the  present  Nehemiah) ,  and  Chronicles  are 
likewise  placed  in  chronological  order.  In  the  same 
passage  of  the  Talmud  the  question  is  put  as  to  why  the 
redaction  of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  is  attributed  to 
King  Hezekiah  and  his  academy.  Rashi  explained  that 
the  prophets  collected  their  speeches  only  a  short  time 
before  their  death,  and  Isaiah  having  died  a  violent 
death,  his  works  could  not  enjoy  the  benefit  of  his  own 
redaction. 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTARIES        131 

Still  less  need  one  expect  to  find  in  Rashi  modern 
exegesis,  that  criticism  which  applies  to  Scriptures  an 
investigation  entirely  independent  of  extraneous  consid- 
erations, such  as  is  brought  to  bear  upon  purely  human 
works.  Rashi's  candid  soul  was  never  grazed  by  the 
slightest  doubt  of  the  authenticity  of  a  Biblical  passage. 
We  can  admire  the  genial  divinations  of  an  Abraham  Ibn 
Ezra,  but  we  also  owe  respect  to  that  sincere  faith  of 
Rashi  which  was  incapable  of  suspecting  the  testimony 
of  tradition  and  the  axioms  of  religion. 

Ibn  Ezra  "*  and  Rashi  present  the  most  vivid  contrast. 
Though  Ibn  Ezra  was  open-minded  and  clear-sighted, 
he  was  restless  and  troubled.  He  led  an  adventurous 
existence,  because  his  character  was  adventurous. 
Rashi's  spirit  was  calm,  without  morbid  curiosity,  lean- 
ing easily  upon  the  support  of  traditional  religion, 
frank,  throughout  his  life  as  free  from  the  shadows  of 
doubt  as  the  soul  of  a  child.  Ibn  Ezra  had  run  the 
scientific  gamut  of  his  time,  but  he  also  dipped  into 
mysticism,  astrology,  arithmolatry,  even  magic.  Rashi, 
on  the  contrary,  was  not  acquainted  with  the  profane 
sciences,  and  so  was  kept  from  their  oddities.  With 
his  clear,  sure  intelligence  he  penetrated  to  the  bottom 
of  the  text  without  bringing  it  into  agreement  with 
views  foreign  to  it.  But  the  characteristic  which  dis- 
tinguishes him  above  all  others  from  Ibn  Ezra  is  the 
frankness  of  his  nature.  He  never  seemed  desirous  of 
knowing  what  he  did  not  know,  nor  of  believing  what 
he  did  not  believe.  Finally,  and  in  the  regard  that 
specially  interests  us,  Ibn  Ezra,  who  belonged  to  the 
school  of  Arabic  philosophers  and  scholars,  who  knew 
the  Spanish  grammarians,  and  was  their  inheritor, 


132  EASHI 

always  employed  the  Peshat — that  is,  when  he  was  not 
biassed  by  his  philosophic  ideas.  In  this  case  he  saw 
the  true  meaning  of  the  text,  perhaps  more  clearly  than 
any  other  Jewish  commentator.  Rashi  did  not  possess 
the  same  scientific  resources.  He  knew  only  the  Tal- 
mud and  the  Midrash,  and  believed  that  all  science  was 
included  in  them.  Moreover,  though  he  stated  in  so 
many  words  his  preference  for  a  literal  and  natural 
interpretation  of  the  text,  he  fell  short  of  always  obeying 
his  own  principle. 


There  is  one  characteristic  of  Rashi's  Bible  commen- 
taries which  I  have  already  touched  upon,  but  to  which 
it  is  well  to  revert  by  way  of  conclusion,  since  it  makes 
the  final  impression  upon  a  student  of  the  commentaries. 
I  refer  to  a  certain  intimacy  or  informality  of  the  work, 
a  certain  easy  way  of  taking  things.  The  author  used 
no  method.  Now  he  explains  the  text  simply  and  nat- 
urally; now  he  enjoys  adorning  it  with  fanciful  embel- 
lishments. One  would  say  of  him,  as  of  many  an  author 
of  the  Talmud,  that  in  writing  his  work  he  rested  from 
his  Talnmdic  studies;  and  one  seems  to  hear  in  these 
unceremonious  conversations,  these  unpretentious  homi- 
lies, the  same  note  that  even  in  the  present  day  is  some- 
times struck  in  synagogues  on  Saturday  afternoons. 
What  clearly  shows  that  Eashi  unbent  a  little  in  com- 
posing his  Biblical  commentaries  are  the  flashes  of  wit 
and  humor  lighting  them,  the  display  of  his  native  grace 
of  character,  his  smiling  geniality.  If  he  yielded  some 
credence  to  the  most  naive  inventions,  this  does  not 
mean  that  he  was  always  and  entirely  their  dupe.  They 


THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTAEIES        133 

simply  gave  him  the  utmost  delight.  He  did  not 
refrain  from  piquant  allusions;  and  the  commentary  on 
the  Pentateuch  presents  a  number  of  pleasantries,  some 
of  which  are  a  bit  highly-spiced  for  modern  taste. 
Fundamentally,  they  are  a  heritage  of  the  old  Midrashic 
spirit  grafted  upon  the  gaiety  of  "  mischievous  and  fine 
Champagne,"  as  Michelet  said.  Assuredly,  there  were 
hours  in  which  good  humor  reigned  over  master  and 
pupils,  and  we  seem  to  see  the  smile  that  accompanied 
the  witty  sallies,  and  the  radiance  of  that  kindly  charm 
which  illuminated  the  dry  juridic  discussions.  All  this 
forms  an  attractive  whole,  and  everyone  may  feel  the 
attraction;  for  the  commentaries  on  the  Bible,  which 
can  be  read  with  pleasure  and  without  mental  fatigue, 
are  intelligible  to  persons  of  most  mediocre  mind  and 
cultivation.  The  words  of  a  certain  French  critic  upon 
another  writer  of  Champagne,  La  Fontaine,  might  be 
applied  to  Eashi,  though  a  comparison  between  a  poet 
and  a  commentator  may  not  be  pressed  to  the  utmost. 
"He  is  the  milk  of  our  early  years,  the  bread  of  the 
adult,  the  last  meal  of  the  old  man.  He  is  the  familiar 
genius  of  every  hearth." 

For  many  centuries  the  Biblical  commentaries  held 
a  position — and  still  hold  it — similar  to  that  of  La 
Fontaine's  Fables.  Few  works  have  ever  been  copied, 
printed,  and  commented  upon  to  the  same  extent. 
Immediately  upon  their  appearance,  they  became  pop- 
ular in  the  strongest  sense  of  the  word.  They  cast  into 
the  shade  the  work  of  his  disciples,  which  according  to 
modern  judgment  are  superior.  Preachers  introduced 
some  commentaries  of  his  into  their  sermons,  and  made 
his  words  the  subject  of  their  instruction;  and  Eashi 


134  RASHI 

was  taught  even  to  the  children.  The  mass  of  readers 
assimilated  the  Halakic  and  Haggadic  elements. 
Those  who  were  not  students,  through  Eashi  got  a 
smattering  of  a  literature  that  would  otherwise  have 
been  inaccessible  to  them;  and  the  commentaries  threw 
into  circulation  a  large  number  of  legends,  which 
became  the  common  property  of  the  Jews.  Bashi's 
expressions  and  phrases  entered  into  current  speech, 
especially  those  happy  formulas  which  impress  them- 
selves on  the  memory.  His  commentary  is  printed  in 
all  the  rabbinical  Bibles;  it  has  become  to  the  Jews 
inseparable  from  the  text,  and  even  Mendelssohn's  com- 
mentary, which  has  all  of  Eashi's  good  qualities  and 
none  of  his  faults,  did  not  succeed  in  eclipsing  it.  In 
short,  it  is  a  classic. 


CHAPTEK  VII 

THE  TALMUDIC  COMMENTARIES 

The  commentaries  on  the  Bible,  especially  those  on 
the  Pentateuch,  constitute  a  work  for  general  reading 
and  for  devotion  as  well  as  for  scientific  study.  Their 
general  scope  explains  both  their  excellencies  and  their 
defects.  On  the  other  hand,  the  commentary  on  the 
Talmud  is  an  academic  work.  It  originated  in  the 
school  of  Eashi,  and  was  elaborated  there  during  a  long 
time.  The  one  is  a  popular  work  for  the  use  of  the 
masses,  the  other,  a  learned  treatise  for  the  use  of 
students.  The  explanation  of  the  Scriptures  was  writ- 
ten for  the  benefit  of  the  faithful  in  popular,  attractive, 
and  comprehensible  form;  the  explanation  of  the  Tal- 
mud constituted  matter  for  serious  study  in  the  acad- 
emies. Or,  rather,  after  the  long,  exhaustive,  and  often 
dry-as-dust  Talmudic  discussion,  the  master  took 
pleasure  in  interrupting  his  instruction  in  the  school 
to  give  his  interpretation  of  Biblical  passages. 

This  is  the  reason  why  the  Talmudic  commentaries,94 
which  are,  as  it  were,  the  summing-up  of  Eashi's  teach- 
ings, of  his  own  studies,  and  of  the  observations  of  his 
pupils,  have  a  more  mature,  more  thoughtful  character 
than  the  Biblical  commentaries.  They  undoubtedly 
represent  a  greater  amount  of  labor.  It  seems  that 
Eashi  himself  made  two  or  three  recensions  of  hia  com- 
mentary, at  least  for  many  of  the  Talmudic  treatises. 


136  RASHI 

Testimony  to  this  fact  is  given  by  the  variations  of 
certain  passages  in  the  extant  text  and  that  cited  by  the 
ancient  authors,  notably  the  Tossafists.  Moreover,  the 
Tossafists  explicitly  mention  corrections  made  by  Eashi 
in  his  own  work.  The  query  naturally  arises  whether 
the  corrections  indicate  that  Eashi  worked  the  entire 
commentary  over  and  over  again.  The  answer  is  no; 
for  certain  treatises  remained  incomplete,  and  others 
seem  never  to  have  been  begun.  Presumably,  then, 
Eashi  revised  a  treatise  according  to  the  needs  of  the 
occasion,  as,  for  instance,  when  it  came  under  his  eyes 
in  the  course  of  instruction.  However  that  may  be, 
the  work  that  we  now  possess  is  a  mixture  of  the  first 
and  the  last  recension,  though  we  cannot  always  tell 
which  is  the  later  and  which  the  earlier. 

Another  fact  explains  the  difference  I  have  pointed 
out  between  the  Biblical  and  the  Talmudic  commen- 
taries. For  the  Biblical  commentaries  there  had  been 
no  precedent,  and  if  they  possess  the  merit  of  originality, 
they  also  illustrate  the  errors  of  a  man  who  tries  his 
powers  in  a  field  of  work  devoid  of  all  tradition.  For  the 
Talmudic  commentaries,  on  the  contrary,  models  were 
not  lacking.  The  example  of  Gershom  was  sufficiently 
notable  to  evoke  imitation,  though  his  work  was  not  so 
complete  as  to  discourage  it.  We  must  not  forget 
Bashi's  predecessors  because  he  eclipsed  them.  This 
would  be  contrary  to  his  intentions,  since  he  frequently 
cites  them,  rendering  value  in  return  for  value  received. 
In  fact,  he  knew  well  how  to  use  their  works  to  advan- 
tage. He  submitted  them  to  a  judicial  and  minute 
examination,  collecting  all  the  material  he  needed 
furnished  by  the  Geonim  as  well  as  by  his  immediate 


THE  TALMTJDIC  COMMENTAEIES       137 

masters.  It  would  be  as  inexact  to  assert  that  he  only 
made  a  resume  of  their  works  as  to  say  that  he  worked 
along  entirely  original  lines  and  relied  solely  upon  his 
own  resources.  If  we  could  compare  his  commentaries 
with  previous  commentaries  (for  some  this  comparison 
has  been  made),  we  should  be  forced  into  the  admission 
that  his  part  is  smaller  than  one  would  suppose.  The 
best  proof  of  this  fact  is  that  the  usual  basis  of  his  com- 
mentary for  each  treatise  was  the  explanation  of  the 
master  under  whom  he  had  studied  it.  He  often  cites 
the  writings  of  his  masters,  to  which  he  gives  the  title 
Yesod,  "Foundation,"  probably  either  collections  made 
by  the  teachers  themselves  or  notebooks  edited  by  their 
pupils.  As  a  result  of  the  love  of  brevity  which  is  one 
of  Eashi's  marked  characteristics,  he  does  not  quote  in 
its  entirety  the  source  upon  which  he  draws,  but  more 
frequently  reproduces  the  sense  rather  than  the  exact 
words. 

I  must  hasten  to  add  that  the  Talmudic  commentaries 
of  Eashi's  masters  were  inadequate,  and  did  not  meet 
all  needs.  We  can  judge  of  the  lacunae  in  them  both 
from  the  commentaries  that  have  been  preserved  and 
from  the  criticisms  which  Eashi  frequently  added  as  an 
accompaniment  to  his  citations.  Sometimes  the  com- 
mentaries were  too  diffuse,  sometimes  too  concise;  their 
language  was  obscure  and  awkward;  no  stress  was  laid 
upon  explaining  all  details,  and  the  commentaries  them- 
selves stood  in  need  of  explanation;  they  addressed 
themselves  to  accomplished  Talmudists  rather  than  to 
students.  Eashi's  commentaries,  on  the  contrary,  could 
be  understood  by  men  of  small  learning — hence  their 
influence  and  popularity.  Moreover,  the  commentaries 


138  BASHI 

of  his  masters  often  contradicted  one  another,  coming 
as  they  did  from  scholars  who  did  not  shrink  from  dis- 
cussion. Eashi  wished  to  put  an  end  to  these  debates 
and  introduce  some  unity  into  rabbinical  tradition, 
and  generally  his  purpose  in  refraining  from  a  quota- 
tion of  his  predecessors  was  exactly  to  avoid  an  opening 
into  the  field  of  controversy.  Finally,  their  commen- 
taries, it  seems,  were  not  comprehensive ;  they  bore  upon 
only  one  or  several  treatises ;  whereas  Eashi's  bore  on  all 
or  nearly  all  the  treatises  of  the  Gemara.95  With  Eashi 
execution  rose  to  the  height  of  his  conception. 

Eashi  availed  himself  so  little  of  the  work  of  his 
masters  that  he  began  by  establishing  a  correct  text  of 
the  Talmud  and  subjecting  it  to  a  severe  revision.  The 
mistakes  of  his  predecessors  oftenest  arose  from  the 
faultiness  of  the  texts,  marred  by  ignorant  copyists  or 
presumptuous  readers.  What  is  more,  the  use  to  which 
the  Talmud  was  put  in  the  academies  and  the  discussions 
to  which  it  gave  rise,  far  from  sheltering  it  from  alter- 
ations made  by  way  of  correction,  modified  it  in  every 
conceivable  fashion,  according  to  the  views  of  the  chiefs 
of  the  schools.  Like  every  book  in  circulation,  the 
Talmud  was  exposed  to  the  worst  changes,  and  this  all 
the  more  readily,  because  at  that  time  no  one  had  a 
notion  of  what  we  call  respect  for  the  text,  for  the  idea 
of  the  author.  As  rigidly  as  the  text  of  the  Bible  was 
maintained  intact  in  the  very  minutest  details,  so  lax  was 
the  treatment  of  the  Talmud,  which  was  at  the  mercy  of 
individual  whim.  Naturally,  the  less  scrupulous  and 
less  clear-sighted  allowed  themselves  the  most  emenda- 
tions. Accordingly,  Eabbenu  Gershom  felt  called  upon 
to  put  a  severe  restriction  upon  such  liberties.  Though 


THE  TALMTJDIC  COMMENTARIES       139 

he  succeeded  in  moderating  the  evil,  it  could  not  be 
suppressed  retroactively.  Rashi  realized  that  corrections 
made  wittingly  were  indispensable,  and  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  clear  the  Talmudic  forest  of  entangling  briers. 
Moreover,  as  we  learn  from  Rashi  himself,  Gershom 
had  already  undertaken  the  task.  Rashi  also  tells  us 
that  he  had  Gershom's  autograph  manuscript  before 
him,  not  to  mention  other  copies  he  was  consulting  and 
collating.  Further  testimony,  apart  from  this  internal 
evidence,  is  provided  by  Rashi's  references  to  texts 
parallel  to  the  Talmud,  among  them  the  Tosefta.  Some- 
times he  records  two  readings  without  giving  either  the 
preference,  though  as  a  rule  the  reasoning  or  the  context 
shows  that  he  leans  one  way  or  the  other,  so  that  his 
alterations,  which  are  usually  correct,  do  not  necessarily 
represent  the  early  text.  When  Rashi  has  good  cause 
for  deciding  a  point  in  a  certain  way,  he  does  not  pay 
attention  to  possible  errors  or  contradictions  on  the 
part  of  the  Talmudists.  In  other  words,  though  his 
text  may  be  the  most  rational,  it  is  not  always  the  most 
authentic. 

Rashi  exercised  this  criticism  of  the  text  to  a  wide 
extent,  yet  prudently.  I  have  already  mentioned  what 
Isaac  of  Vienna  said  concerning  the  numerous  erasures 
that  covered  an  autograph  manuscript  of  his.9*  Many 
readings  that  Rashi  rejected  might  have  been  kept — in 
fact  they  sometimes  were  kept — by  force  of  finesse  and 
subtlety.  His  method  affords  a  striking  contrast  to 
that  of  the  Talmudist  Hananel/7  who  either  eliminates 
the  phrases  unacceptable  to  him  or  preserves  them  only 
by  doing  violence  to  the  sense.  Rashi,  on  the  contrary, 
compared  the  different  versions  of  difficult  or  suspicious 


140  EASHI 

passages  and  prefers  the  one  not  requiring  a  subtle 
explanation.  It  is  only  when  no  reading  satisfies  him 
that  he  assumes  an  interpolation  or  an  error,  in  this 
event  frequently  resorting  to  the  Eesponsa  of  the 
Geonim.  Needless  to  say,  he  also  paid  heed  to  the 
revision  of  Gershom ;  but  since  he  deemed  that  Gershom 
had  himself  preserved  faulty  readings,  he  took  up  the 
work  again,  despite  Gershom's  prohibition.  He  realized 
that  this  careful  and  detailed  critical  revision  of  his 
predecessor,  however  ungrateful  the  soil  might  appear, 
was  nevertheless  fertile  ground,  and  might  serve  as  the 
solid  basis  of  a  thorough  commentary. 

He  acquitted  himself  of  the  task  with  such  success 
that  his  has  become  the  official  text,  the  "  Vulgate,"  of 
the  Talmud.  In  fact,  his  disciples  inserted  into  the 
body  of  the  Gemara  the  greater  part  of  his  corrections 
or  restitutions  (but  not  all;  and  one  does  not  always 
comprehend  the  reasons  for  their  choice),  which  have 
now  become  an  integral  part  of  the  text.  Thus  a 
single,  definite,  and  official  text  was  established — a  thing 
of  great  value  in  assuring  the  stability  of  rabbinical 
tradition  in  France  and  Germany. 

From  what  I  have  already  said,  the  reader  can  gather 
how  individual  was  Rashi's  method.  The  foundation 
for  his  commentaries,  it  is  true,  was  provided  by 
tradition  and  by  the  instruction  he  received  from  his 
masters.  But  over  and  above  the  circumstance  that  he 
preserved  only  what  seemed  fitting  to  him,  is  the  fact 
that  value  attached  rather  to  the  setting  given  the 
material  than  to  the  material  itself.  Herein  resides 
Rashi's  merit — and  the  merit  is  great.  He  was  occupied 
not  so  much  in  extracting  from  the  discussion  of  the 


THE  TALMUDIC  COMMENTARIES       141 

Talmud  the  essential  ideas,  the  principles  indicating 
rules  of  practice,  as  in  rendering  the  discussion  com- 
prehensible both  in  its  entirety  and  in  its  details.  He 
wrote  a  grammatical  commentary  which  provides  the 
exact  meaning,  not  only  of  the  opinions  set  forth,  but 
also  of  the  phrases  and  expressions  employed.  A  Jewish 
scholar  of  our  day,  I.  H.  Weiss,  who  has  accomplished 
much  toward  acclimatizing  the  scientific  study  of  the 
Talmud  in  Eastern  Europe,  justly  remarked — and  what 
he  says  is  a  lesson  to  the  rabbis  of  his  country : 

How  many  Talmudists  are  there  nowadays  who  take 
pains  to  understand  exactly  the  meaning  of  such  and  such 
a  passage  of  the  Talmud,  or  who  are  capable  of  explaining 
it  grammatically?  They  do  like  the  predecessors  of  .Rashi, 
whose  method  it  was  to  give  an  exposition  of  an  entire 
discussion  merely  by  simplifying  its  terms.  They  wrote 
consecutive  commentaries,  not  notes;  and  they  often  failed 
to  explain  difficult  words.  Rashi,  on  the  contrary,  always 
definitely  determined  the  meaning  of  the  various  terms. 

He  does  this  with  a  sure  touch,  and  the  precision  of 
his  explanations  is  all  the  more  remarkable  as  he  did 
not  know — whatever  one  may  say  to  the  contrary — 
the  Talmudic  lexicon  of  Nathan  ben  Jehiel,  of  Rome, 
which  was  not  brought  to  a  conclusion  until  four  years 
after  Rashi's  death.  It  is  a  favorite  trick  of  legend  to 
establish  relations  between  illustrious  contemporaries, 
especially  when  their  activities  were  exercised  in  the 
same  field,  and  tradition  has  made  Rashi  the  pupil  of 
Nathan.  The  idea  of  such  a  relationship,  however,  is 
purely  fantastic,  the  two  rabbis  probably  not  having 
ever  known  each  other.98 

Rashi  carried  the  same  spirit  of  exactness  and  pre- 
cision into  the  whole  of  this  work — qualities  indispen- 
10 


142  EASHI 

sable  but  difficult  of  attainment;  for  as  A.  Darmesteter 
well  says: 

Whoever  has  opened  a  page  of  the  Talmud  understands 
how  necessary  is  a  commentary  upon  a  text  written  in 
Aramaic  and  treating  of  often  unfamiliar  questions  in  con- 
cise, exasperatingly  obscure  dialectics.  The  language,  too, 
is  obscure,  and  the  lack  of  punctuation  renders  reading 
difficult  to  novices.  No  mark  separates  question  from 
answer,  digressions  from  parenthetical  observations.  The 
phrases  form  only  a  long  string  of  words  placed  one  after 
the  other,  in  which  one  distinguishes  neither  the  beginning 
nor  the  end  of  the  sentences. 

The  difficulty  presented  by  the  obscurity  of  the  style 
is  increased  by  allusions  to  facts  and  customs  which  are 
no  longer  known  and  cannot  always  be  guessed  at. 
Now,  thanks  to  Eashi's  commentary,  a  reader  possessing 
a  knowledge  of  the  elements  of  the  language  and  some 
slight  knowledge  of  Jewish  law,  can  decipher  it  without 
overmuch  difficulty. 

Rarely  superficial,  Eashi  explains  the  text  simply  yet 
thoroughly.  He  sifts  his  matter  to  the  bottom.  His 
reasoning  is  free  from  subtleties  and  violations  of  the 
sense.  This  characteristic  comes  out  in  bold  relief 
when  we  compare  Eashi  with  his  disciples,  the  Tossafists, 
who  carry  their  niceties  to  an  excess.  It  would  be 
wrong  to  hold  Eashi  responsible  for  the  abuse  later  made 
of  controversy ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  praise  is  owing 
to  him  for  the  happy  efforts  he  made  to  unravel  the 
texts,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  their  mean- 
ing, but  also  to  indicate  possible  objections  and  reply 
to  them  in  a  few  words.  One  must  marvel  at  the  clear- 
sighted intelligence,  the  sureness,  the  mastery  with 
which  Eashi  conveys  the  gist  of  a  discussion  as  well  as 


THE  TALMUDIC  COMMENTABIES       143 

the  value  of  the  details,  easily  taking  up  each  link  in 
the  chain  of  question  and  answer,  pruning  away  super- 
fluities, but  not  recoiling  before  necessary  supplementary 
developments.  In  addition,  rather  than  resort  to  forced 
explanations,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  avow  that  certain 
passages  puzzled  him,  or  that  his  knowledge  was  insuf- 
ficient— a  scruple  not  always  entertained  by  his  suc- 
cessors. 

To  determine  the  meaning  of  a  text,  Eashi  frequently 
referred  to  parallel  passages,  contained  not  only  in  the 
Gemara  itself,  but  also  in  other  collections,  such  as  the 
Tosefta,  or  the  Halakic  Midrashim.1"  Sometimes  the 
Gemara  cites  them,  or  refers  to  them,  at  other  times  it 
makes  no  allusion  whatsoever  to  them.  In  the  latter 
case,  it  may  be  stated,  Eashi,  even  when  he  does  not  say 
so  explicitly,  himself  found  the  text  for  comparison  and 
was  inspired  by  it. 

Moreover,  on  occasion,  he  points  out  general  rules  to 
which  he  conforms,  some  of  them  indicated  in  the  Tal- 
mud itself,  others  provided  by  the  Geonim,  and  others 
again  evolved  by  himself  in  the  course  of  his  studies. 
Those  who  are  competent  to  judge  admire  the  precision 
with  which  he  lays  down  these  principles.  By  com- 
bining them,  an  excellent,  although  very  incomplete, 
Talmudic  methodology  might  be  drawn  up. 

Some  examples  will  give  a  better  idea  than  a  mere 
description  of  Eashi's  method.  I  will  separate  his  com- 
mentary from  the  text  of  the  Gemara  by  square  brackets, 
so  as  to  show  how  he  inserts  his  commentary,  and  how 
perfectly  he  adapts  it  to  the  Gemara. 

The  following  passages  deal  with  the  proclamation 
of  the  new  moon,  made  by  the  supreme  tribunal,  upon 


144  EASHI 

the  evidence  of  two  persons  who  declare  that  they  have 
seen  the  new  moon. 

Mishnah:  If  he  is  not  known  [if  the  tribunal  does  not 
know  the  witness,  does  not  know  if  he  is  honest  and  worthy 
of  confidence],  they  [the  tribunal  of  his  city]  will  send 
another  person  with  him  [to  bear  witness  concerning  the 
new  moon  before  the  great  tribunal,  which  proclaims  the 
new  month].  At  first,  evidence  concerning  the  new  moon 
was  accepted  from  any  and  every  body;  since  the  Boe'thu- 
sians100  turned  to  evil  [this  is  explained  in  the  Gemara], 
it  was  decided  that  only  the  testimony  of  persons  who  were 
known  would  be  taken. 

Gemara:  What  does  "  another "  signify?  Another  in- 
dividual ?  Does  it  mean  that  a  single  person  is  thought 
[worthy  of  confidence  in  declaring  the  first  night  of  the 
new  moon]?  Is  it  not  taught  in  a  Baraita:  "It  once 
happened  that  a  man  came  [to  the  tribunal,  on  the 
Sabbath,  in  order  to  give  evidence  concerning  the  new 
moon],  accompanied  by  his  witnesses,  to  testify  con- 
cerning himself"  [to  declare  him  worthy  of  confidence]? 
Rab  Papa  replies :  "  Another  "  signifies  "  another  couple 
of  witnesses."  This  explanation  seems  to  be  the  true 
one;  for  otherwise  what  would  these  words  signify: 
"  If  he  is  not  known?  "  If  this  individual  is  not  known? 
But  does  it  mean  that  a  single  person  is  believed  [in  bear- 
ing witness  in  regard  to  the  new  moon]  ?  In  connection 
with  this,  do  not  the  Scriptures  use  the  word  law  [in  the 
verse:  For  this  was  a  statute  for  Israel,  and  a  law  of  the 
God  of  Jacob  m]  ?  Here,  then,  "  the  witness  "  signifies  "  the 
couple  "of  witnesses;  similarly  the  previous  "  another  "  sig- 
nifies "  another  couple."  But  is  it  quite  certain  that  a  single 
man  is  not  enough?  However,  it  is  taught  in  a  Baraita: 
"  It  once  happened  on  a  Sabbath  that  R.  Nehora'i  accom- 
panied a  witness  to  give  evidence  concerning  him  at  Usha  " 
[at  the  time  when  the  Sanhedrin  had  its  seat  in  that  city, 
and  the  new  moon  was  proclaimed  there].  R.  Nehorai'  was 
accompanied  by  another  witness,  and  if  this  witness  is  not 


THE  TALMUDIC  COMMENTAKIES       145 

mentioned,  it  is  out  of  regard  for  R.  Nehorai  [for  R.  Nehorai 
is  mentioned  only  that  we  may  infer  from  his  case  that  so 
prominent  an  authority  inclined  to  leniency  in  the  circum- 
stances stated;  but  it  is  not  fitting  for  us  to  appeal  to  the 
authority  of  his  less  important  companion],  Rab  Ashi 
replies:  There  was  already  another  witness  at  Usha  [who 
knew  the  one  that  was  coming  to  give  eridence],  and  R. 
Nehorai  went  to  join  him.  If  this  is  so,  what  is  it  that  is 
meant  to  be  conveyed  to  us?  This:  we  might  have  thought 
in  case  of  doubt  [possibly  this  second  witness  might  not 
be  at  home],  the  Sabbath  must  not  be  trangressed;  we  are 
thus  taught  that  one  should  do  it,  etc.  (Rosh  ha-Shanah 
22a  bottom). 

The  following  passage  deals  with  the  Luiah,  which 
is  used  at  the  celebration  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles, 
and  must  be  flawless. 

Mishnah:  A  Lulab  [referring  to  the  palm  branch;  far- 
ther on  it  will  be  stated  that  the  myrtle  and  the  willow  of 
the  brook  are  dealt  with  separately]  that  has  been  stolen  [is 
unfit;  for  it  is  said:102  "And  ye  shall  take  you":  what 
belongs  to  you],  or  is  dry  [we  demand  that  the  ritual  be 
carried  out  with  care,  in  conformity  with  the  words  of 
Scripture:  10S  "  I  will  exalt  Him  "],  is  unfit.  Coming  from  an 
Ashera  [a  tree  adored  as  an  idol;  the  Gemara  gives  the 
reason  for  the  prohibition]  or  from  a  city  given  up  to  idola- 
try [for  it  is  considered  as  burnt  down,  as  it  is  said:  "  And 
thou  shalt  gather  all  the  spoil  of  it."10*  Now,  the  Lulab 
should  have  the  length  of  four  palms,  as  will  be  said  far- 
ther on,105  and  since  it  is  destined  to  be  given  up  to  the 
flames,  it  no  longer  has  the  desired  length,  being  considered 
as  burnt],  it  is  unfit.  If  its  end  is  cut  [it  is  unfit;  for  it  is 
not  "beautiful"],  or  if  its  leaves  have  fallen  oft  [from  the 
central  stem,  and  are  united  only  by  a  band  like  the  broom, 
in  French  called  "  escoube."  10*  In  this  case,  also,  it  is  not 
"beautiful"],  it  is  unfit.  If  its  leaves  are  separated 
[attached  to  the  stem,  but  at  the  top  separated  on  each  side, 
like  the  branches  of  a  tree],  it  is  good.  R.  Judah  says:  It 


146  RASHI 

should  be  bound  [if  its  leaves  are  separated,  they  should  be 
bound  so  that  they  are  fixed  to  the  stem  as  with  other  Lu- 
labim].  The  stony  palm  of  the  mountain-of-iron  [the  Gemara 
explains  that  these  are  palms]  are  good  [they  are  Lulab  im, 
although  their  leaves  are  very  small  and  do  not  extend  the 
length  of  the  stem].  A  Lulab  having  the  length  of  three 
palms,  so  that  it  can  be  shaken  [the  Gemara  explains:  the 
stem  should  measure  three  palms,  as  much  as  the  myrtle 
branch,  and,  in  addition,  another  palm  for  shaking,  for  we 
require  that  the  Lulab  be  shaken  in  the  way  told  farther  on 
(37b):  "It  is  shaken  vertically  and  horizontally,"  so  as  to 
exorcise  the  evil  spirits  and  evil  shades],  is  good. 

Gemara:  The  Tanna  is  brief  in  showing  [that  the  Lulab 
is  unfit]  without  distinguishing  between  the  first  day  of  the 
festival  [the  celebration  of  which  is  made  obligatory  by 
the  Torah]  and  the  second  day  [for  which  the  ceremony  of 
the  Lulab  is  prescribed  only  by  the  Rabbis,  Scriptures  say- 
ing "on  the  first  day"102].  It  must  certainly  refer  to  the 
dry  Lulab  [it  may  be  unfit,  even  from  a  rabbinical  point 
of  view,  for  since  it  is  a  rite  instituted  in  commemoration 
of  the  Temple,  we  require  that  it  be  practiced  with  care], 
for  we  require  that  it  be  "  beautiful,"  and  in  this  case  the 
condition  is  not  fulfilled.  But  so  far  as  the  stolen  Lulab 
is  concerned,  I  understand  that  it  should  not  be  used  the 
first  day,  for  in  regard  to  the  first  day  it  is  written:  "  And 
ye  shall  take  you:  "  of  what  belongs  to  you;  but  why  not 
the  second  day  [whence  does  one  know  that  one  may  not  use 
it  then?]?  R.  Johanan  replies  in  the  name  of  R.  Simon  ben 
Fohai:  because  then  a  regulation  would  be  fulfilled  through 
the  commission  of  a  trangression,  for  it  is  said  [for  we 
find  a  verse  which  forbids  the  fulfilment  of  a  regulation 
through  committing  a  transgression] :  "  And  ye  brought 
that  which  was  stolen,  and  the  lame,  and  the  sick." 107 
The  stolen  animal  is  likened  to  the  lame;  and  just  as 
it  is  irremediably  unfit  [it  can  never  be  offered  as  a 
sacrifice,  because  its  imperfection  is  perpetual],  so  the 
one  that  is  stolen  is  irremediably  unfit  [we  deduce  from 
this  rerse  that  it  ean  never  more  become  of  use,  even  if 


THE  TALMUDIC  COMMENTARIES       147 

there  has  been  a  renunciation;  that  is,  if  we  have  heard 
the  owner  renounce  the  object  by  saying,  for  example, 
"Decidedly,  I  have  lost  this  purse;"  although  in  regard  to 
the  ownership  of  the  animal,  we  said,  in  the  treatise  Bdba 
Kama  (68a),  that  the  holder  became  the  possessor,  if  the 
first  owner  renounced  it;  however,  he  cannot  offer  it  as  a 
sacrifice  upon  the  altar],  whether  this  be  before  or  after 
the  renunciation.  If  before  the  renunciation,  because  the 
Torah  says,  "  If  any  man  of  you  bring  an  offering;10*  now, 
the  stolen  animal  does  not  belong  to  him,  but  after  the  re- 
nunciation the  holder  becomes  the  possessor  of  it  through 
the  fact  of  this  renunciation  [why,  then,  does  the  prophet 
forbid  its  being  used  as  an  offering?].  Is  it  not  exactly 
because  this  would  be  to  fulfil  a  regulation  by  committing 
a  transgession?  R.  Johanan  says  again  in  the  name  of 
R.  Simon  ben  Yoha'i:  what  does  this  verse  signify:  "For 
I  the  Lord  love  judgment,  I  hate  robbery  for  burnt  offer- 
ing "  ? 109  [for  the  burnt  offering  that  you  bring  me,  I  hate 
the  theft  of  which  you  make  yourself  guilty  in  stealing  these 
animals,  although  everything  belongs  and  always  has  be- 
longed to  Me].  Let  us  compare  this  case  with  that  of  a 
mortal  king,  who,  passing  before  the  house  of  a  publican, 
says  to  his  servants:  "  Give  the  toll  to  the  publican."  They 
object  and  say:  "But  is  it  not  to  thee  that  all  the  tolls 
return?"  To  which  the  king  replies:  "May  all  travellers 
take  an  example  from  me  and  not  escape  the  payment  of 
toll."  In  the  same  way  God  says:  "  I  hate  robbery  for 
burnt  offerings;  may  My  children  take  an  example  from 
Me  and  escape  the  temptation  to  theft." 

It  has  likewise  been  shown  [that  the  motive  of  the  Mish- 
nah  in  declaring  the  stolen  Lulab  unfit  for  use  on  the  second 
day  of  the  festival,  is  that  it  would  be  the  fulfilment  of  a 
regulation  through  the  commission  of  a  transgression]. 
Rabbi  Ammi  says:  etc.,  (SukkaJi  296). 

From  these  two  citations  it  is  evident  that  Rashi  does 
not  shrink  from  complicated  explanations,  and  that  he 
does  not  comment  on  the  easy  passages.  In  the  follow- 


148  RASHI 

ing  quotation,  the  discussion  is  somewhat  more  difficult 
to  follow. 

Mishnah:  A  slave  [non-Jewish]  who  has  been  made  pris- 
oner and  ransomed  [by  other  Jews]  in  order  to  remain  a 
slave,  remains  a  slave  [this  will  be  explained  by  the 
Gemara] ;  in  order  to  be  free,  becomes  free.  R.  Simon  ben 
Gamaliel  says:  In  the  one  case  as  in  the  other,  he  remains 
a  slave. 

Gemara:  With  which  case  do  we  concern  ourselves?  If 
it  is  before  the  renunciation  of  the  right  of  possession  [by 
the  first  master,  who  has  bought  him  from  the  hands  of  the 
non-Jew],  ransomed  in  order  to  become  free,  why  should 
he  not  remain  a  slave?  It  is,  then,  after  this  renunciation. 
But,  bought  to  be  a  slave,  why  should  he  remain  a  slave? 
[Understand:  of  his  first  master;  why  should  he  remain  a 
slave,  since  there  was  a  renunciation  by  which  rights  upon 
him  as  a  slave  have  been  renounced?].  Abaye  says:  The 
case  under  debate  is  always  that  in  which  the  first  owner 
has  not  yet  renounced  his  rights  upon  the  slave,  and  if  the 
slave  has  been  bought  to  remain  a  slave  [on  condition  of 
being  restored  to  his  first  master,  or  even  upon  condition 
of  belonging  to  him  who  bought  him],  he  remains  the  slave 
of  his  first  master  [the  second,  in  fact,  has  not  acquired 
him,  for  he  knows  that  his  master  remains  his  master, 
until  the  master  has  given  him  up;  he  would,  therefore,  be 
stealing  the  slave] ;  if  the  slave  is  ransomed  to  become 
free,  he  is  the  slave  neither  of  the  first  nor  of  the  second; 
not  of  the  second,  since  he  ransomed  the  slave  to  set  him 
free,  nor  of  the  first  who  possibly  abandoned  him  and  did 
not  buy  him  back.  R.  Simon  b.  Gamaliel,  on  the  other 
hand,  says:  In  one  case  as  in  the  other  he  remains  a  slave; 
in  fact,  he  admits  that  just  as  it  is  a  duty  to  ransom  free 
men,  so  it  is  a  duty  to  ransom  slaves  [it  is  not,  therefore, 
to  be  supposed  that  the  first  master  would  have  abstained 
from  buying  back  his  slave]. 

Raba  says:  We  are  always  dealing  with  the  case  in  which 
the  first  master  has  already  renounced  his  right  of  posses- 


THE  TALMUDIC  COMMENTARIES       149 

sion.  And  if  the  slave  has  been  ransomed  in  order  to  be  a 
slave,  he  serves  his  second  master  [farther  on  the  question 
will  be  asked,  from  whom  the  second  master  bought  him] ; 
if  ransomed  to  be  free,  he  serves  neither  his  first  nor  his 
second  master;  not  his  second  master,  since  he  bought  the 
slave  to  give  him  his  liberty;  and  not  the  first,  since  he 
had  already  renounced  the  slave.  R.  Simon  b.  Gamaliel, 
on  the  other  hand,  says:  In  the  one  case  as  in  the  other  he 
remains  a  slave  [of  his  first  master],  according  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  Hezekiah,  who  said:  Why  is  it  admitted  that  he 
remains  a  slave  in  either  case?  So  that  it  should  not  be 
possible  for  any  slave  whatsoever  to  deliver  himself  up  to 
the  enemy  and  thus  render  himself  independent  of  his 
master. 

It  is  objected:  R.  Simon  b.  Gamaliel  [we  have  been 
taught]  said  to  his  colleagues :  "  Just  as  it  is  a  duty  to  ran- 
som free  men,  so  it  is  a  duty  to  ransom  slaves."  This 
Baraita  is  to  be  understood  according  to  Abaye,  who  takes 
it  that  there  had  been  no  renunciation  [who  applies  the 
Mishnah  to  the  case  in  which  there  has  been  previous  renun- 
ciation; then  the  first  paragraph  of  the  Mishnah  is  motived 
by  the  abstention  of  the  owner,  who  did  not  ransom  his 
slave]:  we  thus  explain  to  ourselves  the  expression  "just 
as  "  [of  R.  Simon  b.  Gamaliel,  for  he  does  not  suppose  that 
the  owner  abstained,  granted  that  it  is  a  duty  to  ransom 
the  slave].  But,  according  to  Raba,  who  takes  it  that  there 
has  been  renunciation  [who  applies  the  Mishnah  to  the 
case  in  which  there  was  renunciation,  and  the  first  para- 
graph of  the  Mishnah  is  motived  by  the  abstention  of  the 
owner,  which  is  equivalent  to  a  renunciation],  this  "just 
as"  [of  R.  Simon  b.  Gamaliel,  what  does  it  signify?], 
since  R.  Simon  b.  Gamaliel  bases  his  opinion  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  Hezekiah  [since  the  reason  of  R.  Simon  b.  Gamaliel 
is  the  principle  of  Hezekiah:  "  so  that  the  slave  should  not 
go  and  deliver  himself  up  to  the  enemy"].  Raba  replies, 
etc.,  (Qittin  376). 

What  one  least  expects  to  find  in  a  Talmudist  is 
historic  veracity.  Yet  it  is  not  lacking  in  Rashi,  either 


150  EASHI 

because  he  was  guided  by  ancient  and  authentic  tradi- 
tions, or  because  he  was  inspired  by  his  clear-sightedness, 
or — but  this  is  apt  to  have  been  the  case  less  frequently — 
because  he  was  well  served  by  his  power  of  divination. 
Eashi  took  good  care  not  to  confound  the  different 
generations  of  Tannaim  and  Amoraim,  or  the  different 
rabbis  in  each.  He  knew  the  biographies  of  all  of  them, 
the  countries  of  their  birth,  their  masters  and  disciples, 
the  period  and  the  scene  of  their  activity.  Such  knowl- 
edge was  necessary  not  only  in  order  to  grasp  the  mean- 
ing of  certain  passages,  but  also  in  order  to  decide  which 
opinion  was  final  and  had  the  force  of  law.  Eashi  also 
tried  to  understand,  and  in  turn  render  comprehensible, 
the  customs  and  the  by-gone  institutions  to  which  the 
Talmud  alludes.  He  gave  information  concerning  the 
composition  of  the  Mishnah  and  the  Gemara,  and  the 
relations  of  the  Mishnahs  and  the  Baraitas.  Because  it 
contains  all  these  data,  Eashi's  commentary  is  still  a 
very  valuable  historical  document,  and  Jewish  historians 
of  our  days  continue  frequently  to  invoke  its  authority. 
Yet  in  spite  of  this  scattered  information,  the  com- 
mentary is  marked  by  certain  deficiencies  which  indicate 
a  deficiency  in  his  mental  make-up.  When  he  explains 
an  historical  passage  of  the  Talmud,  he  is  incapable  of 
criticising  it.  Apart  from  the  fact  that  he  would  not 
believe  legend  to  be  legend,  nor  the  Gemara  capable  of 
mistakes,  he  had  neither  the  knowledge  nor  the  scien- 
tific culture  requisite  for  an  historian.  To  be  convinced 
of  this,  it  is  necessary  to  read  only  the  following  passage, 
in  which  the  Talmud  characteristically  relates  the  final 
events  before  the  downfall  of  the  Jewish  State.  As 
before,  I  reproduce  the  Gemara  along  with  the  com- 


THE  TALMUDIC  COMMENTAEIES       151 

mentary  of  Eashi;  but  in  translating  the  Gemara 
I  anticipate  what  Eashi  says.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  Eashi  explains  in  Hebrew — in  rabbinical  Hebrew— 
a  text  written  in  Aramaic. 

R.  Johanan  says:  what  signifies  this  verse  (Prov.  xxviii. 
14):  "Happy  is  the  man  that  feareth  always  [who  trem- 
bles before  the  future  and  says  to  himself:  provided  that 
no  misfortune  befall  me  if  I  do  such  and  such  a  thing], 
but  he  that  hardeneth  his  heart  shall  fall  into  mischief  "  ? 
For  Kamza  and  Bar  Kamza  Jerusalem  was  destroyed;  for 
a  cock  and  a  hen  the  Royal  Tower110  was  destroyed;  for 
the  side  of  a  litter  (PDD'1)  [the  side  of  a  lady's  chariot, 
called  reitwage  (?)  in  German,  as  is  said  in  the  chapter 
"  The  mother  and  her  young  " :  m  If  thou  yokest  the  mule  to 
the  litter  pSD^T  for  me],  Betar  was  destroyed.  For  Kamza 
and  Bar  Kamza  [names  of  two  Jews]  Jerusalem  was  de- 
stroyed. A  man  whose  friend  was  Kamza  [the  name  of 
whose  friend  was  Kamza]  and  whose  enemy  was  Bar 
Kamza  prepared  a  banquet.  He  said  to  his  servant:  "  Go, 
invite  Kamza."  The  servant  went  to  Bar  Kamza.  Finding 
him  seated,  the  host  said:  "  Since  this  man  is  (thou  art)  my 
enemy,  why  comest  thou  hither?  Go,  leave  me."  The 
other  replied :  "  Since  I  have  come,  let  me  remain  here, 
and  I  will  give  the  price  of  what  I  shall  eat  and  drink." 
"No,"  he  answered  [I  will  not  let  thee  remain  here].  "I 
will  give  thee,"  he  [the  other]  insisted,  "  the  half  of  the 
cost  of  the  banquet."  "  No."  "  I  will  give  thee  the  price 
of  the  entire  banquet."  But  he  took  him  by  the  arm,  and 
made  him  rise  and  go  out.  [The  expelled  man]  said  to 
himself:  "  Since  the  rabbis  present  at  this  scene  did  not 
protest,  it  must  be  that  it  pleased  them.  Very  well!  I  shall 
go  and  eat  the  morsel  [of  calumny]  upon  them  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  governor."  He  went  to  the  governor  and  said 
to  Caesar :  "  The  Jews  are  revolting  against  thee."  Caesar 
replied:  "  Who  told  it  thee  ?  "  "  Send  to  them,"  replied  the 
other,  "a  victim  [to  sacrifice  it  upon  the  altar;  for  we 
deduce  from  the  repetition  of  the  word  "man"  (In  Lev. 


EASHI 


rvii.)  that  the  non-Jews  can  offer  voluntary  sacrifices,  like 
the  Israelites];  thou  wilt  see  if  they  sacrifice  it."  Caesar 
sent  a  calf  without  a  blemish,  but  in  transit  a  blemish 
appeared  on  the  large  lip  [the  upper  lip],  others  say  on 
the  lid  of  the  eye  (  ^pn  )  [  "  tela,"  112  as  in  Is.  xl.  22 
pn  ],  which  constitutes  a  blemish  for  us,  but  not  for  the 
Romans  [they  could  offer  it  to  their  gods  on  the  high 
places,  provided  it  did  not  lack  a  limb].  The  rabbis  were 
in  favor  of  sacrificing  the  animal  in  the  interest  of  public 
peace.  Rabbi  Zechariah  b.  Eukolos  objected  :  "  It  will  be 
said  that  you  offer  imperfect  victims  upon  the  altar."  Then 
they  wanted  to  kill  [the  messenger]  so  that  he  could  not 
return  and  report  what  had  happened.  R.  Zechariah  ob- 
jected: "  It  will  be  said  that  he  who  causes  a  blemish  on  a 
victim  should  be  condemned  to  death  "  [it  will  be  thought 
that  because  he  caused  a  blemish  on  the  victim,  and  because 
he  thus  trangressed  the  prohibition:  "There  shall  be  no 
blemish  therein"  (Lev.  xxii.  21),  he  was  put  to  death].  R. 
Johanan  concluded:  It  is  this  complaisance  of  R.  Zechariah 
b.  Eukolos  [who  did  not  wish  to  put  the  messenger  to 
death]  which  destroyed  our  Temple,  burned  our  Sanctuary, 
and  exiled  us  from  the  land  of  our  fathers  (Qittin  55&). 

This  passage  is  less  historic  than  legendary  in  char- 
acter; it  forms  part  of  the  Haggadic  element  of  the 
Talmud.  In  the  explanation  of  the  Haggadah  Eashi  has 
preserved  its  method,  so  wise,  yet  so  simple.  Others 
have  attempted  to  be  more  profound  in  interpreting  it 
allegorically.  Eashi,  with  his  fund  of  common  sense, 
was  nearer  to  the  truth.  His  conception  of  the  naive 
tales  and  beliefs  was  in  itself  na'ive.  Moreover,  before 
his  time  it  was  the  legislative  part  of  the  Talmud  that 
received  almost  exclusive  attention.  The  rabbis  occu- 
pied themselves  with  questions  of  practice  and  with 
making  decisions,  and  they  tried  to  unknot  the  entangle- 
ments of  the  discussions  for  the  sake  of  extracting  the 


THE  TALMUDIC  COMMENTAKIES       153 

norm,  the  definitive  law.  This  is  the  case  with 
Hananel,  Kashfs  predecessor,  as  well  as  with  Alfasi,u' 
Kashf  s  contemporary.  Although,  as  we  shall  see,  the 
French  rabbi  had  studied  the  Talmud  for  the  sake  of 
practical  needs,  he  adopted,  so  to  speak,  a  more  disin- 
terested point  of  view.  He  did  not  pretend  to  write  a 
manual  of  Talmudic  law,  but  an  uninterrupted  running 
commentary  for  the  use  of  all  who  wanted  to  make  a 
consecutive  study  of  the  Talmud. 

In  the  treatise  Baba  Batra  (73a),  the  Gemara  having 
exhausted  the  few  observations  it  had  to  present  upon 
the  Mishnah,  which  speaks  of  the  sail  of  a  vessel  and 
its  rigging,  falls  back  upon  some  popular  narratives, 
"  Tales  of  the  Sea." 

Raba  said  [all  the  facts  that  will  be  recounted  are  in 
illustration  of  the  verse  (Psalms  civ.  24),  "O  Lord,  how 
manifold  are  thy  works  !  "  Some  of  the  facts  show  that 
the  righteous  are  recompensed  in  the  world  to  come,  or 
they  serve  to  explain  the  verses  of  Job  that  speak  of  large 
birds,  of  the  Behemot,  and  of  the  large  cetaceans;  in  fact, 
"  even  the  simple  conversations  of  the  rabbis  must  be  in- 
structive"]: Some  sailors  reported  to  me  what  follows: 
"  The  wave  which  engulfs  [which  tries  to  engulf]  a  ves- 
sel seems  to  have  at  its  head  [seems  to  be  preceded  by]  a 
ray  of  white  fire  [a  white  flame,  which  is  a  wicked  angel]. 
But  we  beat  it  with  rods  (NniPX)  [rods,  as  in  these  words 
'  neither  with  a  rod  (r6x  )  nor  with  a  lance '  in  the  treatise 
Shabbat  (63a)],  which  bear  these  words  graven  on  them: 
'  I  am  He  who  is,  Yah,  Eternal  Zebaot,  Amen,  Selah '  [such 
is  the  lesson  of  the  text"4]  and  then  it  is  laid  to  rest "  [from 
its  agitation]. 

Raba  recounts:  Some  sailors  related  to  me  that  which 
follows:  "Between  one  wave  and  another  wave  there  are 
three  hundred  parasangs 11B  [it  is  necessary  to  give  us  this 
detail,  for  later  on  it  will  be  said  that  the  one  wave  raised 


154  EASHI 

its  voice  to  speak  to  the  other;  now,  one  can  make  oneself 
heard  at  a  distance  of  three  hundred  parasangs],  and  the 
height  of  a  wave  is  likewise  three  hundred  parasangs. 
Once  we  were  on  a  voyage,  when  a  wave  raised  us  [up 
to  the  heavens,  higher  than  its  own  height;  or  the  heat  of 
the  heavens  is  so  great  that  it  extends  to  a  distance  which 
one  could  traverse  in  nearly  five  hundred  years,  the  dis- 
tance of  the  heavens  from  the  earth116],  so  high  that  we 
saw  the  encampment  [the  dwelling]  of  a  little  star  [of  the 
smallest  of  stars] ;  it  appeared  so  large  to  us,  that  one 
would  have  been  able  to  sow  on  its  surface  forty  measures 
of  mustard  seed  [which  is  larger  than  other  seeds],  and 
if  it  had  raised  us  more,  we  would  have  been  burned  by  its 
fumes  [by  the  heat  of  the  star].  Then  a  wave  raised  its 
voice  [that  is,  called,  just  as  it  is  said,  "  Deep  calleth  unto 
deep"  (Psalms  xlii.  7);  or  it  may  mean  angels  placed  over 
the  stars]  and  said  to  its  companion:  'My  companion, 
have  you  left  something  in  the  world  which  you  have  not 
swallowed  up  [for  it  had  lifted  itself  so  high,  you  might 
have  thought  it  had  sprung  from  the  bed  of  the  sea  and 
had  engulfed  the  world]?  In  that  case  I  will  go  destroy 
it'  [on  account  of  the  sins  of  man].  It  said  [the  one  wave 
replied  to  the  other]:  'Behold  the  might  of  the  Lord:  I 
cannot  by  one  thread  [by  the  breadth  of  a  thread]  go 
beyond  the  sand '  [that  is  to  say :  I  cannot  leave  the  bed  of 
the  sea];  thus  it  is  said  [it  is  the  Gemara  that  cites  this 
verse]:  'Fear  ye  not  me?'  saith  the  Lord.  'Will  ye  not 
tremble  at  my  presence,  which  have  placed  the  sand  for  the 
bound  of  the  sea  by  a  perpetual  decree,  that  it  cannot  pass 
it?'"  (Jer.  v.  22). 

Raba  says:  Hormin  appeared  to  me,  the  son  of  Lillit 
[Hormin  with  an  "n,"  such  is  the  text  which  should  be 
adopted,  and  which  I  get  from  my  father;  but  I  have 
learned  from  my  masters  that  it  should  be  read  "  Hormiz," 
with  a  "  z,"  a  word  which  means  demon,  as  we  see  in  San- 
hedrin  ( 39a)  "  the  lower  half  of  thy  body  belongs  to  Hor- 
miz117], running  along  the  edge  of  the  wall  of  Mahuza 
[This  account  makes  us  realize  the  goodness  of  God  who 


THE  TALMUDIC  COMMENTAKIES       155 

loves  his  creatures  and  does  not  permit  evil  spirits  to  in- 
jure them;  it  also  teaches  us  that  one  must  not  risk  oneself 
alone  on  a  voyage] ;  at  the  same  moment  a  horseman  gal- 
loped by  [without  thinking  of  evil],  and  he  could  not  catch 
up  to  him  [for  the  demon  ran  so  quickly,  that  the  horseman 
could  not  think  of  overtaking  him]. 

In  conclusion  I  will  give  one  more  extract,  from  the 
last  chapter  of  Sanhedrin  (92b),  which  contains  a  vast 
number  of  curious  legends. 

Our  rabbis  taught:  Six  miracles  occurred  on  that 
day  [the  day  on  which  Nebuchadnezzar  threw  the  friends 
of  Daniel  into  the  furnace].  These  are:  the  furnace 
raised  itself  [for  it  was  sunk  in  the  ground,  like  a 
lime-kiln;  on  that  day  it  raised  itself  to  the  surface 
of  the  ground,  so  that  all  could  see  the  miracle] ;  the  fur- 
nace was  rent  in  two  [a  part  of  its  walls  was  riven  so  that 
all  could  look  in];  TflD  pBin  [its  height  was  lowered,  as 
in  the  phrase  m  111D  (Kidduxntn  82o) ;  another  reading 
1DH  pOin ,  like  111D* ,  its  base  was  thrown.  This  is  the 
explanation  taught  me  by  R.  Jacob  ben  Yakar;  but  my  mas- 
ter m  reads  1TD  pIDin :  the  lime  of  the  furnace  melted  as  a 
result  of  the  great  heat.  Such  are  the  explanations  of  my 
masters.  It  was  from  the  heat  thrown  out  by  the  lime  that 
those  men  were  consumed  who  cast  Hananiah,  Mishael,  and 
Azariah  into  the  burning  fiery  furnace  and  that  the  golden 
image  of  the  king  was  transformed  before  his  eyes];  the 
image  of  the  king  was  transformed  before  his  eyes;  the 
four  empires  were  consumed  by  the  flames  [the  kings  and 
their  subjects,  who  aided  Nebuchadnezzar  in  casting  Hana- 
niah, Mishael,  and  Azariah  into  the  fire] ;  finally,  Ezekiel 
brought  the  dead  to  life  in  the  plain  of  Dura.11* 

What  has  been  said  up  to  this  point  indicates  the 
position  taken  by  Eashi  with  regard  to  the  Halakah. 
Unlike  Maimonides  in  his  commentary  of  the  Mishnah, 
he  did  not  as  a  rule  concern  himself  with  the  fixation  of 


156  EASHI 

legal  principles  and  practice,  or  with  the  definite  solution 
of  questions  under  controversy.  He  confined  himself  to 
his  task  of  commentator  and  interpreter.  The  brevity 
he  imposed  upon  himself  made  it  an  obligation  not  to 
enter  into  long  and  detailed  discussions;  for  he  would 
have  had  to  dispose  of  varying  opinions  and  justify  his 
choice.  He  carried  his  principle  to  such  an  extent  that 
it  could  be  said  of  him,  "  Eashi  is  a  commentator,  he 
does  not  make  decisions."  r" 

But  there  are  numerous  exceptions  to  the  rule.  Often 
Eashi  deems  it  necessary  to  state  a  definite  solution, 
either  because  it  has  been  the  subject  of  controversies  on 
the  part  of  his  masters,  or  because  it  was  difficult  to 
separate  it  from  the  rest  of  the  discussion,  or  because 
it  served  as  the  point  of  departure  for  another  dis- 
cussion. Finally,  the  explanation  of  such  and  such  a 
passage  of  the  Talmud  presupposes  the  solution  of  a 
question,  unless  the  solution  changes  with  the  expla- 
nation of  the  passage.  When  the  question  is  left  in 
suspense  by  the  Talmud,  Eashi  usually  determines  it  in  - 
the  strictest  sense;  but  when  it  receives  contradictory 
solutions,  he  either  falls  back  upon  analogous  cases  or 
adduces  rules  of  Talmudic  methodology.  Often,  how- 
ever, his  conclusion  is  nothing  else  than  a  statement 
of  the  practice  observed  in  his  time. 

In  all  these  cases  Bashi's  authority  carries  great 
weight;  so  much  so,  in  fact,  as  to  overbalance  that  of 
Alfasi  and  Maimonides.  Frequent  appeal  was  made 
to  it  by  casuists  of  a  later  date,  and  it  would  have  been 
invoked  still  oftener  had  his  Decisions  been  gathered 
together,  like  those  of  the  Spanish  and  German  rabbis, 


THE  TALMUDIC  COMMENTAEIES       157 

instead  of  having  been  scattered  through  a  large  number 
of  compilations. 


By  reason  of  these  and  other  qualities  the  Talmudic 
commentaries  of  Eashi  without  doubt  outweigh  his 
Biblical  commentaries.  I  should  be  inclined  flatly  to 
contradict  the  opinion  ascribed  to  Jacob  Tarn,  Rashi's 
grandson :  "  So  far  as  my  grandfather's  commentary 
on  the  Talmud  is  concerned,  I  might  do  as  much,  but  it 
would  not  be  in  my  power  to  undertake  his  commentary 
upon  the  Pentateuch."  The  Biblical  commentary  is 
not  always  absolutely  sure  and  certain,  and  the  defects 
are  marked.  The  Talmudic  commentary  remains  a 
model  and  indispensable  guide.  Although  numerous 
Biblical  commentaries  have  been  composed  with  Rashi's 
as  a  standard  and  in  order  to  replace  it,  no  one  has  dared 
provide  a  substitute  for  his  Talmudic  commentary. 
From  an  historical  point  of  view,  the  value  of  the  Tal- 
mudic commentary  is  no  less  great.  At  the  same  period, 
in  three  countries,  three  works  were  composed  which 
complemented  one  another  and  which  came  to  form  the 
basis  of  Talmudic  studies.  At  the  time  when  Eashi  com- 
mented on  the  Talmud,  Nathan  ben  Jehiel m  composed 
the  Talmudic  lexicon,  which  is  still  used  to  a  great 
extent,  while  Isaac  Alfasi  in  his  Halakot  codified  all 
the  Talmudic  regulations.  Of  the  three  works  the  first 
was  the  most  celebrated.  The  exaggerated  statement 
was  made  of  Eashi,  that  "without  him  the  Talmud 
would  have  remained  a  closed  book." J  And  Menahem 
ben  Zerah  m  said :  "  There  was  no  one  so  illuminating, 
and  so  concise  as  Rashi  in  the  commentary  he  wrote  as 
11 


158  EASHI 

if  by  Divine  inspiration.  Without  him,  the  Babylonian 
Talmud  would  have  been  forgotten  in  Israel."  The 
echo  of  this  enthusiastic  opinion  is  heard  in  the  words 
of  the  Hebrew  scholar  H.  L.  Strack,  a  Christian,  and 
the  modern  Jewish  scholar  A.  Darmesteter.  The  one 
says :  "  Eashi  wrote  a  commentary  which  the  Jews  hold 
in  extraordinarily  high  regard  and  which  all  must 
concede  is  of  the  greatest  value."  Darmesteter  wrote: 
"  Suppress  the  commentary  of  Eashi,  that  masterwork 
of  precision  and  clearness,  and  even  for  a  trained 
Talmudist,  the  Talmud  becomes  almost  enigmatical." 
Can  more  be  said?  The  commentary  has  become,  in 
brief,  The  Commentary,  the  Commentary  par  excellence, 
Konteros  (Commentarius). 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  RESPONSA 

In  the  previous  chapter  we  saw  that  Rashi,  though 
chiefly  concerned  with  the  mere  explanation  of  the 
Talmud,  nevertheless  intrenched  sometimes  upon  the 
domain  of  practice.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  at 
that  epoch  the  life  of  the  Jews  was  based  upon,  and 
directed  by,  rabbinical  jurisprudence  and  discipline. 
The  study  of  the  Talmud  was  taken  up  for  the  sake  of 
finding  in  it  rules  for  the  daily  conduct  of  existence. 
Apart  from  certain  questions  purely  theoretic  in  char- 
acter and  having  no  practical  application,  Talmudic 
studies,  far  from  being  confined  to  the  school,  responded 
to  the  needs  of  life  and  were  of  real,  vital  interest.  But 
since  the  Talmud  is  not  all-comprehensive,  the  rabbis 
in  drawing  inspiration  from  its  rules,  from  precedents 
it  had  already  established,  and  from  analogous  instances 
contained  in  it,  were  justified  in  rendering  decisions 
upon  new  points  arising  out  of  circumstances  as  they 
occurred.  Thus,  measures  are  cited  passed  by  Rashi 
upon  the  payment  of  taxes,  Christian  wine,  the  Mezuzdh, 
phylacteries,  etc.  These  measures  resulted  not  so  much 
from  his  own  initiative  as  from  the  requests  preferred 
to  him  by  his  disciples,  or  by  other  rabbis,  or  even  by 
private  individuals. 


160  EASHI 

The  Eesponsa  addressed  by  rabbinical  authorities  to 
individuals  or  to  communities  who  had  submitted 
difficult  cases  and  questions  to  them  for  solution,  consti- 
tute a  special  genus  of  post-Biblical  literature.  Not  to 
mention  their  legislative  value,  how  precious  they  are 
as  documents  in  proof  of  the  fact  that  no  distances  were 
too  long,  no  obstacles  too  great  to  prevent  the  people 
from  obtaining  the  opinion  of  a  scholar !  They  even 
sent  special  messengers  to  him,  when  there  were  no 
favoring  circumstances,  such  as  a  fair  at  the  rabbi's 
place  of  residence,  or  a  journey  to  be  undertaken  thither 
for  other  reasons  than  the  purpose  of  the  consultation. 
Thus  lively  relations  were  established  among  the  Jews 
of  the  most  widely  separated  countries;  and  an  active 
correspondence  went  on  between  scholars  of  Babylon, 
Northern  Africa,  Spain,  France,  Germany,  and  Italy. 

The  circle  of  Rashi's  connections,  however,  was  limited 
to  France  and  Lorraine.  His  chief  correspondents  were 
his  teachers  and  their  disciples.114  It  was  only  after 
Rashi's  day,  when  communication  between  the  Christian 
and  the  Moslem  worlds  became  more  frequent,  that 
rabbinical  authorities  were  appealed  to  from  all  the 
corners  of  Europe  and  Africa. 

Though  his  correspondents  were  not  so  widely 
scattered,  the  subjects  touched  upon  by  Rashi  in  his 
Responsa  are  very  varied  in  character.  He  was  con- 
sulted on  the  meaning  of  a  Biblical  or  a  Talmudic 
passage,  on  the  text  of  the  liturgy,  on  rules  of  grammar, 
on  Biblical  chronology,  and,  especially,  on  new  cases 
arising  in  the  practice  of  religion.  These  Responsa, 
inspired,  so  to  speak,  by  actualities,  by  the  come  and  go 
of  daily  affairs,  introduce  the  reader  to  the  material  and 


THE  RESPONSA  161 

intellectual  life  of  the  Jews  of  the  time,  besides  furnish- 
ing interesting  information  concerning  the  master's 
method. 

One  of  the  questions  most  frequently  agitated 
regarded  wine  of  the  Gentiles,  the  drinking  of  which  was 
prohibited  to  the  Jews  because  it  was  feared  that  the 
wine  had  been  employed  for  idolatrous  libations.  Cases 
of  this  kind  turned  up  every  day,  because  the  Jews 
occupied  themselves  with  viticulture125  and  maintained 
constant  communication  with  the  Christians.  Eashi 
showed  himself  rather  liberal.  Though,  of  course, 
forbidding  Jews  to  taste  the  wine,  he  permitted  them 
to  derive  other  enjoyment  from  it,  the  Christians  not 
being  comparable  to  the  pagans,  since  they  observed  the 
Noachian  laws.  Rashi's  grandson,  Samuel  ben  Mei'r, 
explicitly  states  in  Rashi's  name  that  the  laws  set  forth 
by  the  Talmud  against  the  Gentiles  do  not  apply  to  the 
Christians. 

The  brother  of  Samuel,  Jacob  Tarn,  tells  us  that 
Rashi  forbade  the  payment  of  a  tax  by  using  a  sum 
of  money  left  on  deposit  by  a  Christian.  This  decision, 
Jacob  Tarn  adds,  was  intended  to  apply  to  the  whole 
kingdom  and,  in  fact,  was  accepted  throughout  France. 
This  testifies  not  only  to  the  great  authority  Rashi 
enjoyed,  but  also  to  the  uprightness,  the  honesty  of  his 
character.  Another  of  his  qualities  becomes  apparent 
in  a  second  Responsum  treating  of  the  relations  between 
Jews  and  Christians.  They  carried  on  trade  with  each 
other  in  wheat  and  cattle.  Now,  the  Mishnah  forbids 
these  transactions.  "When  this  prohibition  was  pro- 
mulgated," wrote  Rashi,  "the  Jews  all  dwelt  together 
and  could  carry  on  commerce  with  one  another;  but  at 


162  EASHI 

present,  when  we  are  a  minority  in  the  midst  of  our 
neighbors,  we  cannot  conform  to  so  disastrous  a 
measure."  Eashi,  it  is  therefore  evident,  knew  how  to 
take  into  account  the  needs  of  the  moment,  and  accom- 
modate rules  to  conditions. 

Eelations,  then,  between  the  Jews  and  their  fellow- 
citizens  were  cordial.  The  horizon  seemed  serene.  But 
if  one  looked  closer,  one  could  see  the  gathering  clouds 
slowly  encroaching  upon  the  calm  sky,  clouds  which 
were  soon  to  burst  in  a  storm  of  bloody  hate  and  mur- 
derous ferocity.  Although  the  change  came  about  im- 
perceptibly and  the  Jews  enjoyed  the  calm  preceding 
the  tempest,  despite  this  and  despite  themselves,  they 
entertained  a  smothered  distrust  of  the  Christians.  For 
instance,  they  used  ugly  expressions  to  designate  objects 
the  Christians  venerated.  The  Christians  responded  in 
kind.  The  ecclesiastical  works  of  the  time  are  full  of 
insults  and  terms  of  opprobrium  aimed  at  the  Jews.  If 
one  reads  the  narrative  of  the  Crusades,  during  which 
the  blood  of  innocent  massacred  Jews  flowed  in  streams, 
one  must  perforce  excuse,  not  so  much  real  hostility 
toward  the  Christians,  as  the  employment  of  malicious 
expressions  directed  against  their  worship.  The  feeling 
that  existed  was  rather  the  heritage  of  tradition,  the 
ancient  rivalry  of  two  sister  religions,  than  true  ani- 
mosity. As  for  tolerance,  no  such  thing  yet  existed.  It 
was  difficult  at  that  time  for  people  to  conceive  of 
benevolence  and  esteem  for  those  who  professed  a 
different  belief.  The  effect  of  the  First  Crusade  upon  the 
inner  life  of  the  communities  was  to  create  anomalous 
situations  within  families,  necessitating  the  intervention 
of  rabbinical  authorities.  The  Eesponsa  of  Eashi  deal- 


THE  RESPONSA  163 

ing  with  martyrs  and  converts  no  doubt  sprang  from 
these  sad  conditions.  A  woman,  whose  husband  died 
during  the  persecution,  married  again  without  having 
previously  claimed  her  jointure  from  the  heirs  of  her 
dead  husband;  but  she  wanted  to  insist  on  her  rights 
after  having  contracted  the  new  union.  Rashi,  in  a 
Responsum,  the  conclusions  of  which  were  attacked 
after  his  death  by  several  rabbis,  declared  that  the 
claim  of  the  woman  was  entitled  to  consideration. 

The  echo  of  the  Crusades  is  heard  in  other  instances. 
I  have  already  spoken  of  the  liberal,  tolerant  attitude  ** 
assumed  by  Rashi  in  regard  to  the  unfortunates  who 
deserted  the  faith  of  their  fathers  in  appearance  only, 
and  sought  refuge  in  that  of  their  persecutors. 4  He 
excused  the  hypocrisy  of  these  weak  beings,  who 
accepted  baptism  only  externally  and  in  their  hearts 
remained  Jews. 

In  general,  so  far  as  questions  in  regard  to  lending 
on  interest,  to  giving  testimony,  and  to  marriage 
relations  were  concerned,  Rashi  held  the  apostate  to  be 
the  same  as  the  Jew.  He  was  once  asked  if  the  testi- 
mony of  an  apostate  was  valid  in  law.  "  It  is  neces- 
sary," he  replied  "to  distinguish  in  favor  of  those  who 
follow  the  Jewish  law  in  secret  and  are  not  suspected 
of  transgressing  the  religious  precepts  which  the 
Christians  oblige  them  to  transgress  outwardly.  At 
bottom  they  fear  God.  They  weep  and  groan  over  the 
constraint  put  upon  them,  and  implore  pardon  of  God. 
But  if  there  is  a  suspicion  that  they  committed  trans- 
gressions without  having  been  forced  to  do  so,  even  if 
they  have  repented  with  all  their  heart,  and  all  their 
soul,  and  all  their  might,  they  cannot  bring  evidence 


164  EASHI 

ex  post  facto  concerning  facts  which  they  witnessed 
before  they  repented." 

Eashi,  then,  was  indulgent  above  all  toward  those  who 
had  been  converted  under  the  compulsion  of  violence, 
and  who  sincerely  regretted  their  involuntary  or  im- 
posed apostasy.  On  one  occasion,  he  was  asked  if  the 
wine  belonging  to  such  unfortunates  should  be  for- 
bidden, though  they  had  proved  their  return  to  the 
Jewish  faith  by  a  long  period  of  penitence.  Eashi 
replied :  "  Let  us  be  careful  not  to  take  measures  for 
isolating  them  and  thereby  wounding  them.  Their 
defection  was  made  under  the  menace  of  the  sword,  and 
they  hastened  to  return  from  their  wanderings."  Else- 
where Eashi  objects  to  recalling  to  them  their  momen- 
tary infidelity.  A  young  girl  was  married  while  she  and 
her  bridegroom  were  in  the  state  of  forced  apostasy. 
Eashi  declared  the  union  to  be  valid,  for  "  even  if  a  Jew 
becomes  a  convert  voluntarily,  the  marriage  he  contracts 
is  valid.  All  the  more  is  this  true  in  the  case  of  those 
who  are  converted  by  force,  and  whose  heart  always  stays 
with  God,  and  especially,  as  in  the  present  case,  if  they 
have  escaped  as  soon  as  they  could  from  the  faith  they 
embraced  through  compulsion." 

Since  internal  union  is  the  surest  safeguard  against 
persecution  from  without,  Eashi  earnestly  exhorted  his 
brethren  to  shun  intestine  strife.  "  Apply  yourselves 
to  the  cultivation  of  peace,"  he  once  wrote.  "  See  how 
your  neighbors  are  troubled  by  the  greatest  evils  and  how 
the  Christians  delight  in  them.  Concord  will  be  your 
buckler  against  envy  and  prevent  it  from  dominating 
you."  In  a  community,  doubtless  that  of  Chalons-sur- 
Saone,  in  Burgundy,13'  there  were  two  families  that 


THE  RESPONSA  165 

quarrelled  continually.  The  community  had  intervened 
to  stop  the  strife,  but  one  of  the  two  families  declared 
in  advance  that  it  would  not  submit  to  its  decision.  A 
member  of  the  other  family,  irritated,  reproached  one 
of  his  enemies  with  having  been  baptized.  Now  Rab- 
benu  Gershom,  under  penalty  of  excommunication,  had 
forbidden  people  to  recall  his  apostasy  to  a  converted 
Jew.  Rashi  was  asked  to  remove  this  prohibition;  but 
he  declined,  not  wishing  to  intervene  in  the  internal 
administration  of  a  strange  community.  "What  am  I 
that  I  should  consider  myself  an  authority  in  other 
places?  ....  I  am  a  man  of  little  importance, 
and  my  hands  are  feeble,  like  those  of  an  orphan.  If  I 
were  in  the  midst  of  you,  I  would  join  with  you  in 
annulling  the  interdiction."  From  this  it  is  evident 
that  the  strongest  weapon  of  the  rabbinical  authorities 
against  the  intractable  was,  as  in  the  Church,  excom- 
munication; but  that  sometimes  individuals  asserted, 
and  even  swore  in  advance,  that  they  would  not  yield  to 
the  decree  against  them.  Rashi  considered  that  this 
oath,  being  contrary  to  law,  was  null  and  void. 

Rashi,  guided  by  the  same  feelings,  was  pitiless  in  his 
condemnation  of  those  who  fomented  trouble,  who 
sowed  discord  in  families,  sometimes  in  their  own  house- 
holds. A  man,  after  having  made  promise  to  a  young 
girl,  refused  to  marry  her  and  was  upheld  in  his  in- 
trigues by  a  disciple  of  Rashi.  Rashi  displayed  great 
severity  toward  the  faithless  man  for  his  treatment  of 
the  girl,  and  he  was  not  sparing  even  in  his  denunci- 
ation of  the  accomplice.  Another  man  slandered  his 
wife,  declaring  that  she  suffered  from  a  loathsome 
disease,  and  through  his  lying  charges  he  obtained  a 


166  KASHI 

divorce  from  her.  But  the  truth  came  to  light,  and 
Rashi  could  not  find  terms  sufficiently  scathing  to 
denounce  a  man  who  had  recourse  to  such  base  calum- 
nies and  sullied  his  own  hearth.  "  He  is  unworthy," 
Rashi  wrote,  "  to  belong  to  the  race  of  Abraham,  whose 
descendants  are  always  full  of  pity  for  the  unfortunate ; 
and  all  the  more  for  a  woman  to  whom  one  is  bound 
in  marriage.  We  see  that  even  those  who  do  not  believe 
in  God  respect  the  purity  of  the  home, — and  here  is  a 
man  who  has  conducted  himself  so  unworthily  toward  a 
daughter  of  our  Heavenly  Father."  After  indicating 
what  course  is  to  be  pursued  in  case  of  divorce,  Rashi 
concluded :  "  But  it  would  be  better  if  this  man  were 
to  make  good  his  mistake  and  take  back  his  wife,  so 
that  God  may  take  pity  on  him,  and  he  may  have  the 
good  fortune  to  build  up  his  home  again  and  live  in 
peace  and  happiness." 

The  Responsa,  providing  us,  as  we  have  seen,  with 
interesting  information  concerning  Rashi's  character, 
are  no  less  important  for  giving  us  knowledge  of  his 
legal  and  religious  opinions.  As  a  result  of  the  poise 
of  his  nature,  and  in  the  interest  of  order,  he  attached 
great  importance  to  traditional  usages  and  customs. 
Innovations  are  dangerous,  because  they  may  foment 
trouble;  to  abide  by  custom,  on  the  contrary,  is  the 
surest  guarantee  of  tranquillity.  In  casuistical  ques- 
tions not  yet  solved,  he  did  not  adopt  as  his  principle 
the  one  prevailing  with  so  many  rabbis,  of  rendering  the 
strictest  decision;  on  the  contrary,  in  regard  to  many 
matters,  he  was  more  liberal  than  his  masters  or  his 
colleagues.  Nevertheless,  he  congratulated  those  whose 
interpretation  in  certain  cases  was  more  severe  than  his 


THE  BESPONSA  167 

own.  In  his  scrupulous  piety,  he  observed  certain 
practices,  although  he  refused  to  set  them  up  as  laws 
for  others,  since,  one  of  his  disciples  tells  us,  he  did  not 
wish  to  arrogate  to  himself  the  glory  of  instituting  a 
rule  for  the  future.  He  contented  himself  with  saying : 
"  Blessed  be  he  who  does  this."  Since  he  stuck  to  the 
rigid  observance  of  religion,  and  feared  to  open  the  door 
to  abuses,  he  advised  his  pupils  not  to  give  too  much 
publicity  to  certain  of  his  easy  interpretations  of  the 
Law. 

If  he  did  not  approve  of  laxity,  he  had  still  less  sym- 
pathy with  the  extreme  piety  bordering  on  folly  of  those 
whom  he  called  "crazy  saints."  Enemy  to  every  ex- 
aggeration, he  blamed  those  who,  for  example,  imposed 
upon  themselves  two  consecutive  fast  days.  Once  when 
the  Fast  of  Esther  fell  on  a  Thursday,  a  woman  applied 
to  Rashi  for  advice.  She  told  him  she  was  compelled 
to  accompany  her  mistress  on  a  trip,  and  asked  him 
whether  she  might  fast  the  next  day.  Eashi  in  his 
Responsum  first  recalled  the  fact  that  the  Fast  of  Esther 
was  not  mentioned  either  in  the  Bible  or  in  the  Talmud, 
and  then  declared  that  the  over-conscientious  Jews  who 
fast  on  Friday  in  order  to  make  a  feast  day  follow  close 
upon  a  fast  day,  deserve  to  be  called  fools  who  walk  in 
darkness."* 

Finally,  although  Rashi  was  very  scrupulous  in 
matters  of  religion,  he  was  tolerant  toward  faults  and 
failings  in  others.  Sinners  and,  as  I  have  shown,  even 
apostates  found  grace  with  him.  He  liked  to  repeat 
the  Talmudic  saying  to  which,  in  generalizing  it,  he 
gave  a  new  meaning,  "  An  Israelite,  even  a  sinful  one, 
remains  an  Israelite." 


168  EASHI 

There  is  little  to  say  concerning  the  style  of  Rashi's 
Responsa.  In  the  setting  forth  and  the  discussion  of 
the  questions  under  consideration,  his  usual  qualities  are 
present — precision,  clearness,  soberness  of  judgment. 
But  the  preambles — sometimes  a  bit  prolix — are  written 
after  the  fashion  prevailing  among  the  rabbis  of  the 
time,  in  a  complicated,  pretentious  style,  often  affecting 
the  form  of  rhymed  prose  and  always  in  a  poetic  jargon. 
With  this  exception,  the  Responsa  do  not  betray  the  least 
straining  after  effect,  the  least  literary  refinement.  The 
very  fact  that  Rashi  did  not  himself  take  the  precaution 
to  collect  his  Responsa,  proves  how  little  he  cared  to 
make  a  show  with  them,  though,  it  is  true,  the  custom 
of  gathering  together  one's  Responsa  did  not  arise  until 
later,  originating  in  Spain,  and  passing  on  to  Germany. 
As  I  shall  immediately  proceed  to  show,  it  was  Rashi's 
disciples  who  collected  the  Responsa  of  their  master  and 
preserved  them  for  us,  at  least  in  part. 


CHAPTER  IX 
WORKS  COMPOSED  UNDER  THE  INFLUENCE  OP  EASHI 

After  having  passed  in  review  the  works  which  are 
the  result  of  Rashi's  own  labor  and  which  have  come 
down  to  us  in  the  shape  in  which  they  emerged  from  his 
hands,  or  nearly  so,  several  works  remain  to  be  described 
that  present  a  double  character;  they  did  not  spring 
directly  from  Rashi's  pen,  but  were  written  by  his 
pupils  under  his  guidance,  or,  at  least,  as  the  result  of 
his  inspiration  and  influence.  They  have  reached  us  in 
altered  form,  amplified,  and  sometimes  improved,  some- 
times spoiled  by  various  authors.  The  confusion  reign- 
ing in  these  works  has  contributed  toward  an  inexact 
appreciation  of  their  function.  From  the  first  they 
were  meant  to  be  compilations,  collections  of  rules, 
rather  than  works  having  a  specified  object. 

To  point  out  the  fact  once  again,  Rashi's  pupils 
became  his  collaborators;  and,  it  must  be  added,  they 
established  a  veritable  cult  of  their  master.  They 
neglected  nothing  concerning  him ;  they  carefully  noted 
and  piously  recorded  his  slightest  deed  and  gesture,  on 
what  day  they  had  seen  him,  under  what  circumstances, 
how  he  felt  that  day,  and  how  he  conducted  himself  at 
the  table.  When  a  case  similar  to  some  previous  one 
arose,  they  contented  themselves  with  referring  to  the 
former  and  reproducing  the  discussion  to  which  it  had 
given  rise. 


170  EASHI 

It  is  to  this  veneration,  bordering  on  religious  devo- 
tion, that  we  owe  the  preservation  of  Eashi's  Eesponsa 
and  Decisions.  Some  entered  into  the  collections  of  the 
Babylonian  Geonim, — a  fact  which  shows  how  highly 
people  regarded  the  man  who  was  thus  ranked  with  the 
greatest  rabbinical  authorities, — but  most  of  them 
formed  the  basis  of  several  independent  works :  the  Sefer 
Jia-Pardes  (Book  of  Paradise),  the  Sefer  ha-Orah  (Book 
of  Light?),  the  Sefer  Issur-we-Heter  (Book  of  Things 
Prohibited  and  Things  Permitted),  and  the  Mahzor 
Vitry.  The  first  work  was  edited  at  the  beginning,  the 
last,  at  the  end,  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  part 
of  the  second  was  introduced  into  the  first  by  the  editor 
of  the  first.  The  whole  of  the  second  has  just  been 
published  by  Mr.  Solomon  Buber.  The  third  work, 
which  offers  many  resemblances  to  the  Mahzor  Vitry,  is 
still  in  manuscript;  but  Mr.  Buber  has  recently  prom- 
ised us  its  publication  in  the  near  future,  as  well  as  a 
Siddur,  or  ritual,  of  Eashi,  related  to  the  Mahzor  Vitry 
and  to  a  Sefer  ha-Sedarim. 

In  all  these  collections  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to 
determine  what  is  Eashi's  handiwork,  or  which  of  his 
pupils  is  responsible  for  certain  passages.  The  com- 
position of  the  works  is,  in  fact,  original  and  merits 
brief  characterization. 

The  Sefer  ha-Pardes,  though  commonly  attributed 
to  Eashi  himself,  cannot  possibly  have  been  his  work, 
since  it  contains  rules,  decisions,  and  Eesponsa  made  by 
several  of  his  contemporaries,  and  even  by  some  of  his 
successors.  Among  others  are  additions  by  Joseph  Ibn 
Plat  or  his  disciples  (second  half  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury) .  But  in  respect  of  one  of  its  constituent  elements, 


it  •was  a  creation  of  Rashi's.  It  was  formed,  in  fact,  by 
the  fusion  of  two  collections.  The  author  of  the  one 
containing  the  customs  of  the  three  cities  of  Speyer, 
Worms,  and  Mayence,  must  have  been  one  of  the  Machi- 
rites ;  while  the  author  of  the  other,  comprising  Eashi's 
practices  and  Kesponsa,  must  have  been  his  disciple 
Shemaiah."* 

The  Sefer  ha-Pardes  is  a  widely-read  book,  and  it  has 
been  used,  sometimes  under  other  titles,  by  the  greater 
number  of  legal  compilations  made  in  France  and 
Germany.  It  passed  through  various  redactions,  and 
the  one  now  extant  is  not  the  most  complete. 

The  Sefer  Jid-Orali,  the  redaction  of  which  is  some- 
times attributed,  though  wrongly  so,  to  Nathan  ha- 
Machiri,  is  a  compilation  of  several  works,  which  seem 
to  have  been  written  in  Spain  at  the  beginning  of  the 
fourteenth  century.  It  consists  of  two  principal  ele- 
ments; the  first,  German  in  origin,  is  similar  to  the 
Parties  now  extant ;  the  second  is  the  work  of  the  Span- 
iard, Judah  ben  Barzilla'i,  of  Barcelona  (twelfth  cen- 
tury). It  is,  of  course,  in  the  first  that  one  finds 
fragments  of  works  which  date  back  to  the  disciples  of 
Rashi. 

The  Mahzor  Vitry  is  a  more  or  less  homogeneous 
work.  It  contains  rules  of  jurisprudence  and  of  reli- 
gious practice,  Eesponsa  by  Rashi,  by  his  predecessors, 
and  by  his  contemporaries,  prayers  and  liturgic  poems, 
"Minor"  Talmudic  treatises,  the  whole  divided  into 
chapters  following  the  yearly  cycle,  and  bearing  upon 
the  various  circumstances  of  life.  The  work  contains 
many  additions  due  to  Isaac  ben  Durbal,  or  Durbalo, 
who  visited  the  countries  of  Eastern  Europe  and  was 


172  EASHI 

the  disciple  of  Kabbenu  Tarn  (about  1150).  He  is 
wrongly  considered  to  be  the  redactor  of  the  Makzor 
Vitry.  The  author  of  the  work  is,  without  doubt, 
Simhah  ben  Samuel,  of  Vitry,  a  disciple  of  Rashi  (about 
1100),  who  availed  himself,  moreover,  of  the  works  of 
other  pupils  of  the  master. 

The  Mahzor  Vitry  is  of  great  importance  not  only 
for  the  historian  of  Rashi,  but  also  for  the  historian  of 
Franco-Jewish  culture  and  literature  at  that  time.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  Sefer  ha^Pardes.  Yet  this 
material  must  be  used  with  the  utmost  caution;  for  it 
has  come  to  us  in  a  sad  condition,  disfigured  by  the 
compilers  and  copyists,  who  introduced  elements  from 
various  sources  and  different  epochs.  The  original 
works  disappeared  during  the  persecutions  and  autos-da- 
fe  which  followed  one  another  in  France  and  Germany. 
The  redactions  now  extant  come  from  Spain  and  Italy. 

These  short  analyses  may  give  an  idea  of  the  col- 
lections not  yet  edited ;  for  they  all  stand  in  relation  one 
with  the  other,  and  are  in  great  part  formed  of  the 
same  elements  and  derived  from  the  same  material. 


Almost  immediately  upon  the  birth  of  liturgical 
poetry  in  the  time  of  the  Geonim,  an  illustrious  repre- 
sentative arose  in  the  person  of  Eleazar  ha-Kalir,lso  who 
came  to  exercise  a  profound  influence  upon  his  succes- 
sors, and  in  Eashi's  day  this  poetry  attained  a  high 
degree  of  development.  That  was  the  time  when  Jews, 
instead  of  merely  listening  to  the  officiating  minister, 
commenced  to  accompany  him  with  their  voices  in 
antiphonal  chants. 

Like  most  of  the  rabbis  of  his  time,  Eashi  wrote 
liturgical  poems,  the  number  of  which  Zunz,  with  more 
or  less  surety,  places  at  seven.  Three  are  still  preserved 
in  some  rituals.  According  to  Luria,  Bashi  composed 
more  than  this  number. 

It  is  fair  to  question  whether  a  Talmudist  is  fashioned 
to  be  a  poet,  and  whether  it  is  possible  for  love  of  dis- 
cussion and  dialectics  to  accord  with  poetic  sensibility 
and  imagination.  Indeed,  the  liturgical  poetry  of  the 
Jews  of  France  and  Germany  has  not  the  least  artistic 
value.  It  shows  neither  concern  for  originality,  nor 
knowledge  of  composition,  and  the  poets  were  strangers 
to  the  conception  of  art  and  beauty.  Moreover,  they 
imposed  upon  themselves  rather  complicated  rules,  the 
most  simple  forms  adopted  being  rhyme  and  acrostic. 
12 


174  EASHI 

Sometimes  they  accomplished  veritable  feats  of  mental 
gymnastics,  whose  merit  resided  in  the  mere  fact  that 
a  difficulty  was  overcome.  Too  often  a  play  upon  words 
or  alliteration  takes  the  place  of  inspiration,  and  ideas 
give  way  to  factitious  combinations. 

These  defects  disappear  in  a  translation,  which  is  all 
the  more  acceptable  for  the  very  reason  that  it  does  not 
reproduce  the  vivid  coloring  of  the  original.  The  fol- 
lowing, recited  on  the  Fast  of  Gedaliah  (mrraj  Ditam), 
may  serve  as  an  example.  Rashi  uses  certain  Midra- 
shim  in  it  which  describe  the  throne  of  God  and  the 
heavenly  court.  Such  poetry  as  there  is — and  there  is 
some — is  overlaid  and  submerged  by  the  slow  develop- 
ment of  the  thought  and  the  painfully  detailed  enumera- 
tions, strongly  reminiscent  of  the  Bible.  It  should  be 
said  that  the  language  of  Rashi  is  far  simpler  than  that 
of  his  contemporaries. 

Before  yet  the  clouds  were  gathered  in  a  canopy, 

Before  yet  the  earth  was  rounded  as  a  sphere, 

Thou  didst  prepare  seven  in  Thy  abode : 

The  sacred  Law,  the  splendid  throne,  the  backslider's 

return, 

Paradise  in  all  its  beauty,  and  insatiable  hell, 
The  atonement  place  for  sacrificial  offerings, 
And  the  resplendent  name  of  him  who  delays  to  come  be- 
cause of  all  our  sins. 

Two  thousand  years  before  our  globe  were  these, 
Set  as  jewels  in  the  sky,  whence  earthward  gleamed  their 

light; 

In  the  realms  above  they  ready  stand  round  Him  en- 
throned between  the  Cherubim. 


POETEY  175 

Firm  established  is  the  heavenly  throne  for  the  King 

supreme 

Whose  glory  is  shed  upon  all  within  His  presence : 
By  His  right  hand  the  Law  engraved  with  flaming  let- 
ters 

He  caresses  like  a  child  beloved. 
Toward  the  south  lies  the  ever-fragrant  Garden, 
Hell  with  its  ever-burning  flames  to  the  north, 
Eastward  Jerusalem  built  on  strong  foundations, 
In  the  midst  of  it  the  sanctuary  of  God, 
And  in  the  sanctuary  the  altar  of  expiation, 
Weighted  with  the  corner-stone  of  the  world, 
Whereon  is  graven  the  Messiah's  holy  name 
Beside  the  great  Ineffable  Name. 
In  the  centre  before  Him  who  is  the  source  of  all  bless- 
ings stands  Eepentance, 

The  healing  balm  for  the  suffering  and  afflicted  soul, 
Appointed  to  remove  each  blemish,  array  the  repentant 

in  unsoiled  garments, 

And  pour  precious  oil  on  the  head  of  sorrowing  sinners. 
Thus  we  all,  both  old  and  young,  appear  before  Thee. 
Wash  off  our  every  taint,  our  souls  refine  from  every  sin. 
Backsliding  children,  we  come  to  Thee  as  suppliants, 
Seeking  Thee  day  by  day  with  humble,  urgent  prayers. 
Account  them  unto  us  as  blood  and  fat  of  offerings, 
Like  sacrificial  steers  and  rams  accept  our  contrite  words. 
0  that  our  sins  might  be  sunk  in  abysmal  depths, 
And  Thy  brooding  infinite  mercy  bring  us  near  to  Thee. 

In  the  first  part  of  this  poem  the  imagination  dis- 
played cannot  be  said  to  call  forth  admiration  either  by 
reason  of  fertility  or  by  reason  of  brilliance.  Any  ordi- 


176  KASHI 

nary  student  of  the  Talmud  and  the  Midrash  might 
have  produced  it.  Nevertheless  Eashi  awakens  a  certain 
sort  of  interest,  it  may  even  be  said  that  he  touches  the 
emotions,  when  he  pours  out  all  his  sadness  before  God, 
or  rather — for  his  grief  is  impersonal — the  sadness  of 
the  Jew,  the  humble  sinner  appealing  to  the  mercy  of 
God.  When  his  feelings  rise  to  their  most  solemn  pitch, 
their  strong  pulsations  visible  through  the  unaccus- 
tomed poetic  garb,  the  cloak  of  learned  allusions  drops 
of  itself,  and  emotion  is  revealed  under  the  strata  of 
labored  expressions.  All  the  poems  by  Eashi  belong  un- 
der the  literary  form  called  Selihot,  penitential  psalms, 
recited  on  fast  days. 

What  has  been  said  of  the  first  specimen  quoted  ap- 
plies equally  to  the  next  (o'jrtya  joia  rmoxn  Tibx"), 
for  the  eve  of  the  Day  of  Atonement.  It  would  have 
been  more  effective,  had  there  been  less  emphasis  and  a 
more  consecutive  development  of  the  thought. 

....  Of  all  bereft  we  appear  before  Thee, — 

Thine  is  the  justice,  ours  the  sin, — 

Our  faces  flushed  with  shame  we  turn  to  Thee, 

And  at  Thy  gates  we  moan  like  doves. 

Vouchsafe  unto  us  a  life  of  tranquil  joy, 

Purge  us  of  our  stains,  make  us  white  and  pure. 

0  that  our  youthful  faults  might  vanish  like  passing 

clouds ! 

Eenew  our  days  as  of  old, 
Eemove   defilement   hence,   set   presumptuous   sins   at 

naught; 
The  purifying  waters  of  truth  sprinkle  upon  us, 


POETEY  177 

For  we  confess  our  transgressions,  we  rebellious,  faith- 
less children. 


0  that  a  contrite  spirit,  a  broken,  repentant  heart 

Be  acceptable  to  Thee  as  the  fat  of  sacrifices ! 

Accomplish  for  the  children  Thy  promise  to  the  fathers. 

From  Thy  celestial  abode  hearken  unto  us  who  cry  to 
Thee! 

Strengthen  the  hearts  of  those  inclined  to  pay  Thee 
homage, 

Lend  Thy  ear  unto  their  humble  supplication. 

Yet  once  more  rescue  Thy  people  from  destruction. 

Let  Thy  olden  mercy  speedily  descend  on  them  again, 

And  Thy  favored  ones  go  forth  from  judgment  justi- 
fied,— 

They  that  hope  for  Thy  grace  and  lean  upon  Thy  lov- 
ing-kindness. 

The  final  specimen  (  impS  nSsn  )  is  still  more 
pathetic  in  its  tearful  contrition.  The  last  lines  even 
rise  to  unusual  beauty  when  they  point  down  a  shining 
vista  of  happy,  serene  days. 

At  morn  we  order  our  prayers,  and  wait  to  offer  them  to 
Thee. 

Not  sacrificial  rams  we  bring  to  Thee,  but  hearts  contrite 
and  tender. 

0  that  the  tribute  of  our  lips  might  plead  our  cause, 

When  suppliants  we  stand  before  Thy  threshold,  watch- 
ing and  waiting. 

The  early  dawn  awakens  us,  and  our  faces  are  suffused 
with  shame. 


178  EASHI 

Our  hearts  beat  fast,  we  whisper  softly,  hoarse  and 

weary  with  calling  on  Thee. 

We  are  cast  down,  affrighted, — Thy  judgment  comes. 
To  Thy  teaching  we  turned  deaf  ears, 
And  unto  evil  were  seduced. 
Rebellious  were  we,  when  Thou  earnest  to    guide    us 

aright, 
And  now  we  stand  abashed  with  lowered  eyes. 

£. 

Our  ruin  Thou  didst  long  past  see — 

Is  Thy  fiery  wrath  still  unappeased? 

We  sinned  in  days  agone,  we  suffer  now,  our  wounds  are 
open, 

Thy  oath  is  quite  accomplished,  the  curse  fulfilled. 

Though  long  we  tarried,  we  seek  Thee  now,  timid,  anx- 
ious,— we,  poor  in  deeds. 

Before  we  perish,  once  more  unto  Thy  children  join 
Thyself. 

A  heavenly  sign  foretells  Thy  blessing  shall  descend  on 
us. 

Brute  force  is  shattered,  and  with  night  all  round  about, 
Thy  affianced  spouse,  loving,  yearning, 

Calls  on  Thy  faithfulness ;  she  pleads  with  her  eyes,  and 
asks,  is  still  she  Thine, 

Is  hers  Thy  love  for  aye? 

The  uniformity  and  monotony  of  this  poetry,  it  must 
be  admitted,  weary  the  reader.  The  author  never  goes 
beyond  a  narrow  circle  of  ideas,  and  general  ideas  at 
that.  It  is  impossible  to  make  out  whether  the  allu- 
sions are  to  contemporaneous  events,  the  persecutions 
connected  with  the  First  Crusade,  for  instance,  or 


POETEY  179 

whether  they  refer  to  the  ancient,  traditional  wrongs 
and  sufferings.  Nowhere  is  Eashi's  poetry  relieved  by  a 
touch  of  personal  bias.  It  cannot  be  denied,  however, 
that  the  poems  testify  to  a  fund  of  sincerity  and  enthu- 
siasm, and  that  is  noteworthy  in  a  period  of  literary 
decadence,  when  it  often  happens  that  sincerity  of  sen- 
timent fails  by  a  good  deal  to  find  sincere  expression  for 
itself.  Esthetic  inadequacy  should  by  no  means  be  taken 
as  synonymous  with  insincerity.  Eashi  proves,  that 
without  being  an  artist  one  can  be  swayed  by  emotion 
and  sway  the  emotions  of  others,  particularly  when  the 
dominant  feeling  is  sadness.  "The  prevailing  charac- 
teristic of  Eashi's  prayers,"  says  Zunz,  the  first  historian 
of  synagogue  poetry  as  well  as  the  first  biographer  of 
Eashi,  "  is  profound  sadness ;  all  of  them  are  filled  with 
bitter  plaints."  Finally,  if  the  Selihot  by  Eashi  fall 
far  short  of  our  idea  and  our  ideal  of  poetry,  they  at 
least  possess  the  interest  attaching  to  all  that  relates  to 
their  illustrious  author. 


BOOK  III 
THE   INFLUENCE   OP   BASHI 


BOOK  III 

THE   INFLUENCE   OF   EASHI 


CHAPTER  XI 

FROM  RASHI'S  DEATH  TO  THE  EXPULSION 
OF  THE  JEWS  FROM  FRANCE 

The  preceding  chapters  show  how  voluminous  and 
varied  was  Rashi's  work.  And  yet  we  are  far  from 
possessing  everything  he  wrote;  a  number  of  texts  have 
disappeared,  perhaps  are  lost  forever.  But  this  fertility 
is  not  Rashi's  sole  literary  merit.  If  the  excellence  of  a 
work  is  to  be  measured  not  only  by  its  intrinsic  value,  but 
also  by  its  historical  influence,  by  the  scientific  move- 
ment to  which  it  has  given  the  impulse,  by  the  literature 
which  it  has  called  into  being,  in  short,  by  its  general 
effect,  no  work  should  receive  a  higher  estimate  than 
that  of  Rashi,  for,  it  may  be  said  without  exaggeration, 
no  other  work  was  ever  the  occasion  of  so  much  comment 
and  discussion,  and  none  exerted  an  influence  so  far- 
reaching  and  enduring.  From  the  moment  of  their 
appearance  his  writings  spread  rapidly,  and  were  read 
with  enthusiasm.  After  profoundly  affecting  his  con- 
temporaries, Rashi  continued  to  guide  the  movement 
he  had  started.  His  influence  upon  rabbinical  liter- 


184  EASHI 

ature  is  comparable  only  with  that  of  Maimonides. 
Indeed,  it  was  more  wholesome  than  his.  The  Talnmdic 
codex  established  by  Maimonides  aimed  at  nothing 
less  than  to  shut  off  the  discussions  and  to  give  the  oral 
law  firm,  solid  shape.  Eashi,  on  the  contrary,  safe- 
guarded the  rights  of  the  future,  and  gave  his  successors 
full  play.  Again,  not  having  introduced  into  his  work 
philosophic  speculations,  he  was  shielded  against  criti- 
cism, and  his  renown  was  therefore  more  immaculate 
than  that  of  the  author  of  the  Mishneh  Torah,,  who  had 
to  undergo  furious  attacks. 

Eashi  dominates  the  entire  rabbinical  movement  in 
France  and  Germany.  Generally,  the  influence  of  a 
writer  wanes  from  day  to  day;  but  as  for  Eashi's,  it 
may  be  said  to  have  increased  by  force  of  habit  and  as 
the  result  of  events,  and  to  have  broadened  its  sphere. 
Limited  at  first  to  French,  Lotharingian,  and  German 
centres  of  learning,  it  soon  extended  to  the  south  of 
Europe,  to  Africa,  and  even  to  Asia,  maintaining  its 
force  both  in  the  field  of  Biblical  exegesis  and  of  Tal- 
mudic  jurisprudence. 

Since  it  is  impossible  to  mention  all  the  authors  and 
works  following  and  preceding  Eashi,  it  must  suffice  to 
point  out  some  characteristic  facts  and  indispensable 
names  in  order  to  bring  into  relief  the  vitality  and 
expansive  force  of  his  achievement,  and  to  show  how  it 
has  survived  the  ravages  of  time,  and,  what  is  more,  how 
it  has  overcome  man's  forgetfulness — edax  tempus, 
edacior  homo.  We  shall  see  that  Eashi  directed  the 
course  of  the  later  development  at  the  same  time  that 
he  summed  up  in  his  work  all  that  had  previously  been 
accomplished. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  185 

"  The  example  of  a  man  as  revered  as  Rashi  for  his  piety, 
his  character,  and  his  immense  learning  was  bound  to 
make  a  profound  and  lasting  impression  upon  his  contem- 
poraries. His  descendants  and  his  numerous  disciples, 
pursuing  with  equal  zeal  the  study  of  the  Talmud  and  that 
of  Scriptures,  took  as  their  point  of  departure  in  either 
study  the  commentaries  of  their  ancestor  and  master,  to 
which  they  added  their  own  remarks,  now  to  enlarge  upon 
and  complete  the  first  work,  now  to  discuss  it,  refute  it, 
and  substitute  new  views.  Thus  arose  the  Tossafot,  or 
additional  glosses  upon  the  Talmud,  and  thus  in  the  follow- 
ing generations  arose  new  commentaries  upon  the  Penta- 
teuch or  upon  the  entire  Bible,  in  which  the  rational  spirit 
evoked  by  Rashi  assumed  a  more  and  more  marked  and 
exclusive  form."  m 

Finally,  Rashi's  influence  was  not  confined  either 
within  the  walls  of  the  Jewries  or  within  the  frontiers 
of  France,  but  it  radiated  to  foreign  lands  and  to 
ecclesiastical  circles. 


It  may  be  said  without  exaggeration  that  Rashi's 
Talmudic  commentary  renewed  rabbinical  studies  in 
France  and  in  Germany.  It  propagated  knowledge  of 
the  Talmud  there  and  multiplied  the  academies.  In 
fact,  schools  were  founded  in  all  localities  containing 
Jewish  communities  no  matter  how  insignificant;  and  it 
is  difficult  for  us  to  obtain  any  idea  of  the  number  and 
importance  of  these  "  Faculties,"  scattered  over  the 
length  and  breadth  of  Northern  France,  which  thus 
became  a  very  lively  centre  of  Jewish  studies  and  the 
chief  theatre  of  the  intellectual  activity  of  the  Occi- 
dental Jews.  Its  schools  eclipsed  those  of  the  Rhenish 
countries  and  rivalled  in  glory  those  of  Spain. 


186  EASHI 

What  in  the  first  instance  contributed  to  the  success  of 
the  movement  begun  by  Eashi,  is  the  fact  that  he 
moulded  numerous  disciples — in  this  more  fortunate 
than  Maimonides,  who  was  unable  to  found  a  school  and 
who  sowed  in  unploughed  land.  It  was  only  with  the 
lapse  of  time  that  his  work  little  by  little  made  its  way, 
while  Eashi  through  his  teaching  exerted  an  absolutely 
direct  and,  as  it  were,  living  influence.  Eashi's  authority 
was  such  that  Troyes  became  the  chief  centre  of  studies. 
Many  pupils  flocked  to  it  and  there  composed  important 
works,  casting  into  sure  and  permanent  form  the  intel- 
lectual wealth  they  had  gathered  while  with  their 
master.  They  put  the  finishing  touches  to  his  work  and 
labored  to  complete  it,  even  during  his  life,  and  as 
though  under  his  protection. 

I  have  already  spoken  of  Simhah  ben  Samuel  de  Vitry, 
author  of  the  liturgical  and  ritual  collection,  Mahzor 
Vary™  Among  other  disciples  not  so  well  known  are 
Mattathias  ben  Moses,  of  Paris,  Samuel  ben  Perigoros, 
Joseph  ben  Judah,  and  Jacob  ben  Simson  (1123),  who 
lived  at  Paris  or  Falaise  and  wrote  Eesponsa  at  the 
dictation  of  his  master,  and,  besides  commentaries,  a 
Mahzor,  and  an  astronomic  work.  He  was  in  turn  the 
master  of  Jacob  Tarn. 

Judah  ben  Abraham,  of  Paris,  aided  by  suggestions 
from  his  master,  wrote  a  ceremonial  for  the  Passover. 
In  carrying  out  his  task,  he  availed  himself  of  the  notes 
of  his  older  fellow-disciple  Simhah,  and  his  collaborator 
was  Shemaiah,  who  had  already  worked  on  Eashi's  com- 
mentary on  Ezekiel.  Besides,  Shemaiah  made  additions 
to  Eashi's  Talmudic  commentaries,  and  composed 
several  commentaries  under  his  guidance.  He  also 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  187 

collected  and  edited  Rashi's  Decisions  and  Responsa, 
serving,  as  it  were,  as  Rashi's  literary  executor.  More- 
over, he  was  a  relative  of  Rashi's,  though  the  degree  of 
kinship  is  not  known,  the  evidence  of  authors  upon  the 
subject  being  contradictory.  Some  maintain  he  was 
Rashi's  grandson,  or  son-in-law,  or  the  son-in-law  of  his 
sister ;  according  to  others — and  this  seems  more  exact — 
he  was  the  father-in-law  of  a  brother  of  Jacob  Tarn. 

At  all  events,  it  was  Rashi's  relatives  who  contributed 
most  to  his  renown.  "  In  regard  to  his  family  Rashi 
enjoyed  unexampled  good  fortune,"  says  Zunz.  "It 
was  not  only  through  his  disciples,  but  also  through  his 
family  that  the  founder  of  rabbinical  literature  in 
France  and  Germany  established  his  reputation,  spread 
his  works,  and  added  to  the  lustre  of  his  name."  A  fact 
which  no  doubt  helped  to  assure  the  direction  of  the 
studies  made  by  Rashi's  descendants,  is  that  they  pos- 
sessed the  manuscripts  written  and  corrected  by  their 
ancestor;  and  these  autographs  were  veritable  treasures 
at  a  time  when  books  were  rare  and  copies  inexact. 

One  of  Rashi's  sons-in-law,  Judah  ben  Nathan,"*  was 
a  scholarly  and  highly  esteemed  Talmudist.  At  the 
suggestion  of  his  father-in-law,  he  completed  Rashi's 
commentaries  and  continued  the  work  after  Rashi's 
death,  using  as  his  chief  aid  the  oral  explanations  he  had 
received  from  him.  The  son  of  Judah,  Yomtob,  was 
also  a  good  Talmudist. 

The  other  son-in-law,  Me'ir  ben  Samuel  (about 
1065-1135),  was  originally  from  the  little  town  of 
Rameru,1*4  which  through  him  and  his  sons  became  an 
important  intellectual  centre  for  more  than  a  half- 
century.  Mei'r  was  a  distinguished  scholar  whom  his 


188  EASHI 

sons  sometimes  cite  as  an  authority.  He  wrote  Ee- 
sponsa  in  association  with  his  master  and  father-in- 
law.  As  I  have  already  stated,  Me'ir  ben  Samuel 
married  a  daughter  of  Eashi,  Jochebed,  by  whom  he 
had  four  sons  and  a  daughter,  Miriam,  the  wife  of 
Samuel  of  Vitry.  One  of  the  sons,  Solomon,  has  been 
known  to  us  for  only  about  twelve  years,  although  he 
had  a  reputation  as  a  Talmudic  and  Biblical  scholar, 
chiefly  the  latter,  having  received  the  surname  of 
"  father  of  grammarians."  His  reputation,  however, 
was  eclipsed  by  that  of  his  three  brothers,  who  have 
poetically  been  called  the  three  vigorous  branches  of 
the  tree  of  which  Eashi  was  the  trunk.  These  were 
Samuel  ben  Meir,  surnamed  Eashbam,  Jacob  ben  Meir, 
surnamed  Jacob  Tarn,  or  Eabbenu  Tarn,  and  finally 
Isaac  ben  Meir,  surnamed  Eibam.  The  last,  who 
lived  without  doubt  at  Eameru  and  there  composed 
Tossafot™  died  during  the  life-time  of  his  father,  leav- 
ing seven  young  children.  He  did  not  equal  his  brothers 
either  in  knowledge  or  renown. 

Samuel  ben  Meir  (about  1085-1158)  studied  under 
his  grandfather.  As  we  have  seen"*  he  discussed  exe- 
getic  questions  with  Eashi,  and  went  so  far  as  to  express 
opinions  in  his  presence  concerning  points  of  casuistry. 
On  Eashi's  death,  it  seems,  he  assumed  the  direction  of 
the  school  at  Troyes;  but  he  was  more  prominently 
identified  with  the  academy  which  he,  following  in  the 
steps  of  his  master,  founded  at  Eameru,  and  which 
soon  became  prosperous.  It  was  at  Eameru,  too,  that 
he  wrote  his  valuable  Talmudic  commentaries."7  Among 
his  pupils  are  said  to  have  been  Isaac  ben  Asher  ha-Levi, 
of  Speyer,  and  Joseph  Porat  ben  Moses,  known  also 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  KASHI  189 

as  Don  Bendit.  Samuel  ben  Heir's  was  a  bold,  in- 
dependent spirit.  In  some  instances  he  sacrificed  a 
Talmudic  explanation  for  the  sake  of  one  that  seemed 
more  natural  to  him.  In  addition  he  had  a  fair  amount 
of  scientific  and  philosophic  knowledge,  and  he  was  very 
productive  in  the  field  of  literature. 

But  Eashbam's  authority,  if  not  his  knowledge,  was 
exceeded  by  that  of  his  younger  brother  Jacob.  Jacob 
Tarn,  born  about  1100,  was  still  a  very  young  child  when 
Eashi  died.  He  studied  under  the  guidance  of  his 
father,  on  whose  death  he  assumed  the  direction  of  the 
academy  of  Bameru  in  his  father's  place.  Then  he  went 
to  Troyes,  where  he  was  surrounded  by  numerous  pupils, 
some  from  countries  as  distant  as  Bohemia  and  Eussia. 
One  of  his  best  known  disciples  was  Eliezer  ben  Samuel, 
of  Metz  (died  about  1198),  author  of  the  Sefer  Yere'im 
(Book  of  the  Pious).  Other  pupils  of  his  mentioned 
were  Moses  ben  Abraham,  of  Pontoise,  to  whom  he  wrote 
in  particularly  affectionate  terms,  and  Jacob  of  Orleans, 
a  scholar  held  in  high  regard,  who  died  at  London  in 
1189  in  the  riot  that  broke  out  the  day  of  Eichard  I's 
coronation.  A  year  later,  in  1190,  the  liturgical  poet 
and  Biblical  commentator  Yomtob  de  Joigny  died  at 
York.  It  seems  that  Jacob  Tarn,  like  his  successors,  had 
to  suffer  from  the  popular  hate  and  excesses.  In  fact 
he  tells  how,  on  one  occasion,  on  the  second  day  of 
Pentecost  (possibly  at  the  time  of  the  troubles  resulting 
from  the  Second  Crusade),  he  was  robbed  and  wounded, 
and  was  saved  from  death  only  through  the  interven- 
tion of  a  lord.  The  end  of  his  life  was  saddened  by  the 
auto-da-fe  of  Blois,  at  which  numerous  Jews  suffered 
martyrdom.  He  perpetuated  the  memory  of  that  occa- 
13 


190  EASHI 

sion  by  instituting  a  fast  day.  He  died  in  1171,  univer- 
sally regretted  for  his  clear  and  accurate  intellect,  his 
piety,  uprightness,  amiability,  and  modesty.  His  con- 
temporaries considered  him  the  highest  rabbinical 
authority,  and  he  was  consulted  by  persons  as  remote 
as  in  the  south  of  France  and  the  north  of  Spain.  He 
possessed  a  remarkably  original,  broad  yet  subtle  in- 
tellect, and  his  writings  display  keen  penetration  and 
singular  vigor  of  thought.  He  devoted  himself  chiefly 
to  Biblical  exegesis;  but  in  this  domain  he  obtained  a 
reputation  less  through  the  purely  exegetical  parts  than 
through  the  critical  work  in  which  he  defended  the 
grammarian  Menahem  against  the  attacks  of  Dunash.188 
His  liturgical  compositions  and  the  short  poems  with 
which  he  sometimes  prefaced  his  Eesponsa  show  that  he 
was  a  clever  poet,  an  imitator  of  the  Spaniards.  Abra- 
ham Ibn  Ezra  while  on  his  rovings  in  France  was  one 
of  his  correspondents. 

However,  Jacob  Tarn,  or,  to  call  him  by  his  title  of 
honor,  Eabbenu  Tarn, — in  allusion  to  Gen.xxv.27,  where 
Jacob  is  described  as  "  tarn,"  a  man  of  integrity — owed 
his  renown  to  his  Talmudic  activity,  which  he  exerted  in 
an  original  line  of  work  though  he  was  not  entirely  free 
from  the  influence  of  Eashi.  If  he  was  not  the  creator  of 
a  new  sort  of  Talmudic  literature,  he  was  at  least  one 
of  its  first  representatives.  Either  because  he  considered 
the  commentaries  of  his  grandfather  impossible  to  imi- 
tate, or  because  he  could  not  adapt  himself  to  their 
simplicity  and  brevity,  he  took  pleasure  in  raising  in- 
genious objections  against  them  and  proposing  original 
solutions.  These  explanations  joined  to  his  Decisions 
and  Eesponsa  were  collected  by  him  in  a  work  called 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  191 

Sefer  ha-Yashar  (Book  of  the  Just),  of  which  he  him- 
self made  two  redactions.  The  one  we  now  possess  was 
put  together — rather  inaccurately — after  the  death  of 
the  author  according  to  the  second  recension.  The  Sefer 
ha-Yashar  was  used  a  great  deal  by  later  Talmudists. 
It  may  be  said  to  have  inaugurated  the  form  of  litera- 
ture called  Tossafot. 

As  the  word  signifies,  the  Tossafot  are  "additional 
notes,"  "  Novellae,"  upon  the  Talmud.  They  display 
great  erudition,  ingenuity,  and  forcible  logic,  and  they 
represent  a  prodigious  effort  of  sharp  analysis  and  hard- 
bound dialectics.  The  authors  of  the  Tossafot,  the 
Tossafists,  were  marvellously  skilful  at  turning  a  text 
about  and  viewing  it  in  all  its  possible  meanings,  at 
discovering  intentions  and  unforeseen  consequences. 
Their  favorite  method  was  to  raise  one  or  more  ob- 
jections, to  set  forth  one  or  more  contradictions  between 
two  texts,  and  then  to  propound  one  or  more  solutions, 
which,  if  not  marked  by  simplicity  and  verisimilitude, 
none  the  less  bear  the  stamp  of  singularly  keen  insight. 
In  their  hands  the  study  of  the  Talmud  became  a 
sturdy  course  in  intellectual  gymnastics.  It  refined  the 
intellect  and  exercised  the  sense  of  logic.  Yet  it  would 
be  a  mistake  to  see  in  the  Tossafot  nothing  but  the  taste 
for  controversy  and  love  of  discussion  for  the  sake  of 
discussion.  The  Tossafists,  even  more  than  Eashi, 
sought  to  deduce  the  norm,  especially  the  practical 
norm,  from  the  Talmudic  discussions,  and  discover 
analogies  permitting  the  solution  of  new  cases.  Thus, 
while  Eashi's  commentary  is  devoted  to  the  explanation 
of  words,  and,  more  generally,  of  the  simple  meaning 
of  the  text,  the  Tossafot  enter  into  a  searching  con- 


192  BASHI 

sideration  of  the  debates  of  the  Talmud.  Moreover, 
Eashi  composed  short  but  numerous  notes,  while  the 
Tossafists  wrote  lengthier  but  less  consecutive  commen- 
taries. At  the  same  time  one  of  Eashi's  explanations  is 
a  fragment  of  the  Tossafot  explanation.  Thus,  the  com- 
mentary of  the  Tossafists  exists  in  abridged  form,  as  it 
were,  in  germ,  in  the  commentary  of  Eashi.  Eashi  was 
the  constant  guide  of  the  Tossafists.  His  commentary, 
"  the  Commentary,"  as  they  called  it,  was  ever  the  basis 
for  their  "  additions."  They  completed  or  discussed  it ; 
in  each  case  they  made  it  their  point  of  departure,  and 
his  influence  is  apparent  at  every  turn.  The  species  of 
literature  called  Tossafot  is  not  only  thoroughly  French 
in  origin,  but,  it  may  said,  without  Eashi  it  would 
never  have  come  into  existence.  The  authors  of  the 
Tossafot  are  as  much  the  commentators  of  Eashi  as  they 
are  of  the  Talmud.1"  The  Tossafot  bear  the  same 
relation  to  his  Talmudic  commentary  as  the  Gemara  to 
the  Mishnah.  Like  the  Amoraim  in  regard  to  the 
Tannaim,  the  Tossafists  set  themselves  the  task  of  com- 
pleting and  correcting  the  work  of  the  master;  for, 
despite  their  veneration  for  Eashi,  they  did  not  by  any 
means  spare  him  in  their  love  of  truth. 

The  first  Tossafists,  both  in  point  of  age  and  worth, 
were  not  only  the  disciples,  but  also,  as  we  have  seen, 
even  the  descendants  of  Eashi.  "We  drink,"  said 
E.  Tarn,  "  at  the  source  of  E.  Solomon."  One  of  the 
most  celebrated  Tossafists  was  a  great-grandson  of 
Eashi,  Isaac  ben  Samuel  (about  1120-1195)  surnamed 
the  Elder,  son  of  a  sister  of  E.  Tarn  and  grandson,  on 
his  father's  side,  of  Simhah,  of  Vitry.  Born  without 
doubt  at  Eameru,  he  attended  the  school  of  his  two 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  RASHI  193 

uncles,  Samuel  ben  Mei'r  and  Jacob  Tarn.  When  Jacob 
Tarn  left  for  Troyes,  Isaac  ben  Samuel  took  his  place. 
Later  he  founded  a  school  at  Dampierre,"0  where,  it  is 
said,  he  had  sixty  pupils,  each  of  whom  knew  one  of  the 
treatises  of  the  Talmud  by  heart.  Through  his  depart- 
ure, Eameru  lost  its  importance  as  a  centre  of  study. 
He  collected  and  co-ordinated  various  explanations  grow- 
ing out  of  Rashi's  commentaries.  Thus  he  established 
the  foundations  for  the  Tossafot,  on  every  page  of  which 
his  name  appears. 

He  was  the  teacher  of  the  most  learned  Talmudists 
of  the  end  of  the  twelfth  and  the  beginning  of  the  thir- 
teenth century.  His  son  and  collaborator  Elhanan,  a 
highly  esteemed  rabbi,  died  before  him,  some  say  as  a 
martyr.  Among  his  disciples  are  said  to  have  been 
Baruch  ben  Isaac,  originally  from  Worms,  later  resident 
of  Ratisbon,  author  of  the  Sefer  ha-Terumah  (Book 
of  the  Heave-Offering),  one  of  the  first  and  most 
influential  casuistic  collections  (about  1200) ;  Isaac  ben 
Abraham,  called  the  Younger  to  distinguish  him  from  his 
master,  whom  he  succeeded  and  who  died  a  little  before 
1210;  and  the  brother  of  Isaac,  Samson  of  Sens  (about 
1150-1230),  whose  commentaries,  according  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Asheri,  exercised  the  greatest  influence  upon 
the  study  of  the  Talmud.  He  was  one  of  the  most  illus- 
trious representatives  of  the  French  school,  and  his 
authority  was  very  great.  His  usual  abiding  place  was 
Sens  in  Burgundy,  but  about  1211  he  emigrated  to 
Palestine  in  the  company  of  some  other  scholars.  He 
met  his  death  at  St.  Jean  d'Acre. 

By  this  time  Champagne  had  proved  too  contracted 
a  field  for  the  activity  of  so  many  rabbis.  Flourishing 


194  EASHI 

schools  arose  in  Ile-de-France  and  Normandy;  and  it 
is  related  that  at  Paris,  in  the  first  half  of  the  twelfth 
century,  lived  the  scholarly  and  pious  Elijah  ben  Judah, 
who  carried  on  a  controversy  about  phylacteries  with  his 
kinsman  Jacob  Tarn.  But  the  most  celebrated  Tossafist 
of  Paris  without  reserve  was  Judah  Sir  Leon,  born  in 
1166  and  died  in  1224,  a  descendant  of  Eashi.  The 
school  of  Paris  having  been  closed  after  the  expulsion  of 
1181,  Judah  went  to  study  at  Dampierre  under  the 
guidance  of  Isaac  and  his  son  Elhanan.  Among  his 
fellow-disciples,  besides  the  rabbis  already  mentioned, 
were  Samson  Sir  of  Coucy,  Solomon  of  Dreux,  Simon  of 
Joinville,  Abraham  ben  Nathan,  of  Lunel,  and  others. 
In  1198  Philip  Augustus  recalled  the  Jews  he  had 
expelled,  and  the  community  again  prospered.  Judah 
re-established  the  school,  which  soon  assumed  the  first 
place  in  the  list  of  academies.  Among  his  numerous 
pupils  mention  is  made  of  Moses  ben  Jacob,  of  Coucy, 
brother-in-law  of  Samson  and  author  of  the  famous 
Sefer  Mizwot  Gadol  (Great  Book  of  Precepts),  abbrevi- 
ated to  Semag,  which  shows  the  mingled  influence  of 
the  Mishneh  Torah  of  Maimonides  and  of  the  Tossafot 
of  the  French  masters ;  Isaac  ben  Moses,  of  Vienna,  who 
carried  into  Austria  the  methods  and  teachings  of  his 
French  masters,  surnamed  Or  Zarua  after  the  title 
of  his  work,  a  valuable  ritual  compilation;  and  Samuel 
ben  Solomon  Sir  Morel,141  of  Falaise  (about  1175-1253), 
whose  most  celebrated  pupil  was  Mei'r  of  Eothenburg, 
the  greatest  authority  of  his  country  and  his  time, 
known  for  his  dramatic  end  as  well  as  for  his  great 
intellectual  activity  (1225-1293). 


THE  INFLUENCE  OP  EASHI  195 

The  successor  of  Judah  Sir  Leon  was  Jehiel  ben 
Joseph,  or  Sir  Vives,  of  Meaux.  At  this  time  the  school 
is  -said  to  have  counted  three  hundred  pupils.  In  the 
disputation  of  1240,"*  Jehiel  ben  Joseph  together  with 
Moses  of  Coucy,  Samuel  of  Falaise,  and  another  less 
well-known  rabbi,  Judah  ben  David,  of  Melun,  repre- 
sented the  Jews.  A  Christian  source  calls  Jehiel  "  the 
cleverest  and  most  celebrated  of  all  the  Jews."  When 
he  left  for  Palestine  in  1260  the  school  of  Paris  was 
closed  not  to  be  opened  again. 

Jehiel  left  behind  him  in  France  two  important 
disciples,  his  son-in-law,  Isaac  ben  Joseph,  of  Corbeil 
(died  in  1280),  who  in  1277  published  the  "  Columns  of 
Exile,"  also  called  Sefer  Mizwot  Katan  (Little  Book  of 
Precepts),  abbreviated  to  Semak,  a  religious  and  eth- 
ical collection,  which  enjoyed  great  vogue;  and  Perez 
ben  Elia,  of  Corbeil  (died  about  1295),  who  mentions 
Isaac  as  his  master  also.  Perez  visited  Brabant  and 
Germany,  where  he  maintained  relations  with  Me'ir  of 
Eothenburg.  Among  his  pupils  there  was  Mordecai  ben 
Hillel,  an  authority  highly  esteemed  for  his  decisions, 
who  died  a  martyr  at  Nuremberg  in  1298.  Another 
master  of  his  was  Samuel  ben  Shneor,  of  Evreux  (about 
1225),  a  much-quoted  Tossafist,  who  studied  under  the 
guidance  of  his  elder  brother  Moses,  editor  of  the 
"  Tossafot  of  Evreux,"  largely  used  for  the  present 
printed  editions  of  the  Tossafot.  In  the  second  half  of 
the  thirteenth  century,  Eliezer  of  Touques  compiled  the 
Tossafot  of  Sens,  of  Evreux,  etc.,  adding  his  own  ex- 
planations on  the  margin.  His  work  forms  the  chief 
basis  for  our  present  Tossafot  to  the  Talmud. 


196  EASHI 

As  always  with  redactions  and  compilations,  these 
mentioned  here  are  a  sign  of  the  discontinuance  of 
studies,  worn  threadbare  by  two  centuries  of  intense 
activity.  Decadence,  moreover,  was  brought  about  more 
rapidly,  as  we  shall  see,  by  the  misfortunes  that  succes- 
sively befell  the  Jews  of  France. 

II 

Bashi's  influence  was  no  less  enduring  and  no  less 
wholesome  in  the  province  of  Biblical  exegesis.  An  idea 
of  the  impression  he  made  may  be  gained  from  the  fact 
that  more  than  fifty  super-commentaries  were  written  on 
his  commentary  on  the  Pentateuch,  to  explain  or  to 
complete  it,  to  defend  it,  and  occasionally  to  combat  it. 
But  Eashi's  influence  was  productive  of  still  more  than 
this.  It  called  into  being  original  works  superior  even 
to  his  own.  His  disciples  shook  off  the  yoke  of  Tal- 
mudic  and  Midrashic  tradition  that  had  rested  upon 
him.  But  even  when  they  surpassed  him,  it  was  never- 
theless his  influence  that  was  acting  upon  them  and  his 
authority  to  which  they  appealed. 

Samuel  ben  Mei'r,  diffuse  as  were  his  Talmudic  com- 
mentaries, was  admirably  brief  in  his  commentary  on 
the  Pentateuch,  which  is  a  model  of  simplicity  and  ac- 
curacy, and  is  marked  by  insight  and  subtlety.  It  is 
possibly  the  finest  product  of  the  French  exegetic  school. 
It  sets  forth  general  rules  of  interpretation,  as,  for 
instance,  that  the  Bible  should  be  explained  through 
itself  and  without  the  aid  of  the  Haggadic  or  even 
Halakic  Midrash.  Literal  exegesis,  said  Samuel  ben 
Meir,  is  more  forceful  than  Halakic  interpretation. 
He  so  resolutely  pursued  the  method  of  Peshat,  that 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  RASHI  197 

Nahmanides  felt  justified  in  declaring  he  sometimes 
overdid  it.  The  same  admirable  qualities  exist  in  Rash- 
barn's  commentaries  on  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagio- 
grapha,  in  which  he  everywhere  turns  to  excellent  ac- 
count the  works  of  his  ancestor,  sometimes  merely 
referring  to  them,  but  also  combating  Rashi's  expla- 
nations, though  in  this  case  he  does  not  mention  Rashi. 

Eliezer  of  Beaugency  and  Moses  of  Paris  (middle  of 
the  twelfth  century)  were  doubtless  among  the  disci- 
ples of  Samuel  ben  Me'ir.  Moses  of  Paris,  in  turn,  had 
a  pupil  by  the  name  of  Gabriel. 

Occasionally  Rashbam  did  not  disdain  the  Midrash. 
But  the  same  cannot  be  said  of  his  friend  and  collabo- 
rator Joseph  ben  Simon  Kara  (born  about  1060-1070, 
died  about  1130-1140),  a  nephew  and  disciple  of  Mena- 
hem  ben  Helbo,  and  the  friend  if  not  the  disciple  of 
Rashi,  to  whom  he  acknowledges  himself  indebted.  He 
wrote  additions  to  Rashi's  commentaries,  and  on  Rashi's 
advice  wrote  a  part  of  his  Biblical  commentaries,  several 
of  which  have  been  published.  They  enjoyed  great  vogue, 
and  in  certain  manuscripts  they  are  set  alongside  of, 
or  replace,  Rashi's  commentaries.  They  fully  deserve 
the  honor ;  for,  in  fact,  Joseph  Kara  surpasses  Rashi  and 
rivals  Rashbam  in  his  fair-minded  criticism,  his  scrupu- 
lous attachment  to  the  literal  meaning,  and  his  abso- 
lutely clear  idea  of  the  needs  of  a  wholesome  exegesis, 
to  say  nothing  of  his  theological  views,  which  are  always 
remarkable  and  sometimes  bold.  He  frankly  rejected 
the  Midrash,  and  compares  the  person  making  use  of  it 
to  the  drowning  man  who  clutches  at  a  straw.  Con- 
trary to  tradition  he  denies  that  Samuel  was  the  author 
of  the  Biblical  book  bearing  his  name. 


198  EASHI 

Side  by  side  with.  Joseph  Kara  belongs  his  rival  and 
younger  contemporary  Joseph  Bekor-Shor,  doubtless  the 
same  person  as  Joseph  ben  Isaac,  of  Orleans,  who  was  a 
disciple  of  Eabbenu  Tarn,  and  must,  therefore,  have 
lived  in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century.  His  com- 
mentary on  the  Pentateuch,  which  has  been  published  in 
part,  is  frequently  cited  by  later  exegetes,  and  its  repu- 
tation is  justified  by  its  keen  insight  and  its  vein  of  odd 
originality.  Joseph  Bekor-Shor  had  felt  the  influence 
of  the  Spaniards,  but  he  had  yielded  to  the  attractions 
of  Talmudic  dialectics,  which  he  had  acquired  at  a  good 
school,  although,  like  his  master,  he  cites,  in  connection 
with  the  Bible,  a  certain  Obadiah. 

Quae  secutae  sunt  magis  defleri  quam  narrari  possunt. 
In  the  works  of  the  second  half  of  the  twelfth  century 
this  fault  becomes  more  and  more  perceptible,  and  signs 
of  decadence  begin  to  appear.  Moreover,  the  writings 
at  this  time  were  very  numerous,  fostering,  and,  in  turn, 
stimulated  by,  anti-Christian  polemics.  The  greater 
number  of  the  Tossafists  study  the  Bible  in  conjunction 
with  the  Talmud.  Citations  are  made  of  explanations 
or  Biblical  commentaries  by  Jacob  of  Orleans,  Moses  of 
Pontoise,  Isaac  the  Elder,  Isaac  the  Younger,  Judah  Sir 
Leon,  Jehiel  of  Meaux,  and  Moses  of  Coucy.  All  these 
rabbis  wrote  Tossafot  to  the  Bible  as  well  as  to  the  Tal- 
mud. This  comparative  study  of  Bible  and  Talmud 
was  continued  for  some  time,  until  at  the  beginning  of 
the  thirteenth  century  intellectual  activity  was  ex- 
hausted. Original  works  were  replaced  by  a  large 
number  of  compilations,  all  related  to  one  another,  since 
the  authors  copied  without  scruple  and  pillaged  without 
shame. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  199 

Chief  among  these  works,  which  bear  the  general  title 
of  Tossafot  to  the  Torah  and  some  of  which  have  been 
printed,  are  Hazzekuni,  by  Hezekiah  ben  Manoah 
(about  1240),  GanM  (Garden),  by  Aaron  ben  Joseph, 
(about  1250),  Daat  Zekenim  (Knowledge  of  the 
Ancients),  in  which  many  exegetes  are  cited  (after 
1252),  Paaneah  Razah  (Eevealer  of  the  Mystery),  by 
Isaac  ben  Judah  ha-Levi  (about  1300),  Minhat 
Yehudah  (Offering  of  Judah),  by  Judah  ben  Eliezer 
(or  Eleazar),  of  Troyes  (1313),  Hadar  Zekenim  (Glory 
of  the  Ancients;  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century), 
and  Imre  Noam  (Pleasant  Words),  by  Jacob  of  Illescas 
(middle  of  the  fourteenth  century). 

All  these  works  were  more  or  less  inspired  by  Rashi, 
and  some,  such  as  Hazzekuni,  might  be  called  super-com- 
mentaries to  Eashi.  But  these  disciples  were  not  true 
to  the  spirit  of  the  master.  They  gave  themselves  up 
to  the  Haggadah  more  than  he  did,  and  also  to  a  thing 
unknown  to  him,  Gematria  and  mystical  exegesis. 
Thus  this  French  school,  which  for  nearly  a  century 
had  shone  with  glowing  brilliance,  now  threw  out  only 
feeble  rays,  and  abandoned  itself  more  and  more  to  the 
subtleties  of  the  Midrash,  to  the  fancifulness  of  the 
Gematria.  It  almost  consigned  to  oblivion  the  great 
productions  in  rational  exegesis,  always  excepting 
Rashi's  commentaries,  the  popularity  of  which  never 
waned,  as  much  because  of  the  author's  renown  as 
because  of  his  concessions  to  the  Midrash. 

It  remained  for  a  Christian  exegete  to  free  rational 
exegesis  from  the  discredit  into  which  it  had  fallen. 
The  ecclesiastical  commentators  even  more  than  the 
authors  of  the  Biblical  Tossafot  were  steeped  in  alle- 


200  EASHI 

gorism  and  mysticism ;  but  among  them  were  some  who 
cultivated  the  interpretation  of  the  literal  meaning  of 
Scriptures,  and  even  appealed  to  Jewish  scholars  for 
explanations.  Unfortunately,  Eashi's  works,  written  in 
a  language  unintelligible  to  the  Christians,  could  not  in 
any  degree  influence  a  general  intellectual  movement. 

However,  exception  must  be  made  of  the  celebrated 
Franciscan  monk  Nicholas  de  Lyra  (born  about  1292, 
died  in  1340),  author  of  the  Postillae  perpetuate  on  the 
Bible  which  brought  him  the  title  of  doctor  planus  et 
utilis.  Nicholas  de  Lyra  possessed  knowledge  rare 
among  Christians,  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  language, 
and  he  knew  Hebrew  so  well  that  he  was  thought  to  be 
a  converted  Jew.  In  his  works,  polemical  in  character, 
he  comes  out  against  the  mystical  tendencies  in  the 
interpretations  of  the  rabbis,  and  does  not  spare  Eashi, 
even  attributing  to  him  explanations  nowhere  existing 
in  Eashi's  writings.  But  these  criticisms  of  his,  as  he 
himself  says,  are  "  extremely  rare."  Moreover  he  does 
not  refrain  from  accepting  for  his  own  purposes  a  large 
number  of  Midrashim  borrowed  from  Eashi.  It  was 
from  Eashi's  commentaries,  in  fact,  that  he  learned  to 
know  rabbinical  literature — only  to  combat  it.  On  one 
occasion  he  said,  "  I  usually  follow  Eabbi  Solomon, 
whose  teachings  are  considered  authoritative  by  modern 
Jews."  He  sometimes  modified  the  text  of  the  Vulgate 
according  to  the  explanations  of  the  rabbi,  and  his  com- 
mentary on  the  Psalms,  for  instance,  is  often  only  a 
paraphrase  of  Eashi's.  For  this  reason  Nicholas  de 
Lyra  was  dubbed,  it  must  be  admitted  somewhat  irre- 
verently, simia  Salomonis,  Eashi's  Ape.  Nevertheless, 
he  exercised  great  influence  in  ecclesiastical  circles, 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  201 

comparable  to  that  of  Kashi  among  the  Jews.  His 
commentary  was  called  "the  common  commentary." 
Possibly  it  was  in  imitation  of  Nicholas's  work  that  the 
name  glosa  hebraica  (the  Hebrew  commentary),  or 
simply  glosa,  was  bestowed  upon  Eashi's  work  by  a 
Christian  author  of  the  thirteenth  century,  who,  if  not 
the  famous  scholar  and  monk  Eoger  Bacon,  must  have 
been  some  one  of  the  same  type.  Another  Christian 
exegete  of  the  same  period,  William  of  Mara,  cites 
Eashi's  commentary  under  the  title  of  Penis.  The 
admiration  felt  for  Nicholas  de  Lyra,  which  now  seems 
somewhat  excessive,  is  expressed  in  the  well-known 
proverb :  Si  Lyra  non  lyrasset,  totus  mondus  deli- 
r asset.  A  modification  of  the  proverb,  si  Lyra  non 
lyrasset,  Lutherius  non  saltasset,  is  not  an  exaggeration ; 
for  the  works  of  the  Franciscan  monk  were  soon  trans- 
lated into  German,  and  they  exercised  a  profound 
influence  on  the  leader  of  the  Eefonnation  when  he 
composed  the  translation  of  the  Bible,  epoch-making  in 
the  history  of  literature  as  well  as  of  religion.  It  is 
known  that  Luther  had  large  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew 
and  a  strong  feeling  for  it,  a  quality  he  owed  to  Nicholas 
de  Lyra  and,  through  him,  to  the  Jewish  exegetes, 
although  his  scornful  pride  would  never  permit  him  to 
concede  that  "Eashi  and  the  Tossafists  made  Nicholas 
de  Lyra  and  Nicholas  de  Lyra  made  Luther." 

At  the  time  when  Eashi's  influence  was  thus  ex- 
tended to  Christian  circles,  the  Jewish  schools  called 
into  being  by  his  work  and  his  teachings  fell  into  decay 
on  account  of  the  persecutions  that  shook  French 
Judaism  to  its  foundations  and  almost  deprived  it  of 
existence.  This  shows  how  firmly  intellectual  activities 


202  EASHI 

are  bound  up  with  temporal  fortunes — a  truth  mani- 
fested in  the  period  of  growth  and  maturity  and  illus- 
trated afresh  in  the  period  of  decadence. 

Even  after  the  First  Crusade,  the  situation  of  the 
Jews  of  France  had  remained  favorable.  It  did  not 
perceptibly  change  as  a  result  of  the  various  local  dis- 
orders marking  the  Second  Crusade.  Nevertheless,  the 
second  half  of  the  twelfth  century  witnessed  the  uprise 
of  accusations  of  ritual  murder  and  piercings  of  the 
host.  Popular  hatred  and  mistrust  were  exploited  by 
the  greedy  kings.  Philip  Augustus  expelled  the  Jews 
from  his  domain  in  1181,  though  he  recalled  them  in 
1198.  Yet  the  example  had  been  set,  and  the  security 
of  the  Jews  was  done  for.  The  lords  and  bishops 
united  to  persecute  them,  destroy  their  literary  treas- 
ures, and  paralyze  their  intellectual  efforts.  They  found 
the  right  king  for  their  purposes  in  St.  Louis,  a 
curious  mixture  of  tolerance  and  bigotry,  of  charity 
and  fanaticism.  "  St.  Louis  sought  to  deprive  the  Jews 
of  the  book  which  in  all  their  trials  was  their  supreme 
consolation,  the  refuge  of  their  souls  against  outside 
clamor  and  suffering,  the  only  safeguard  of  their  mo- 
rality, and  the  bond  maintaining  their  religious  oneness 
— the  Talmud."  In  1239  an  apostate,  Nicholas  Donin, 
of  La  Eochelle,  denounced  the  Talmud  to  Gregory  IX. 
The  Pope  ordered  the  seizure  of  all  copies,  and  an  in- 
vestigation of  the  book.  In  France  the  mandate  was 
obeyed,  and  a  disputation  took  place  at  Paris.  Natur- 
ally, the  Talmud  was  condemned,  and  twenty-four  cart- 
loads of  Hebrew  books  were  consigned  to  the  flames. 
The  auto-da-fe  of  1242  marks  the  decadence  of  an 
entire  literature,  the  ruin  of  brilliant  schools,  and  the 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  203 

check  to  the  movement  so  gloriously  inaugurated  by 
Eashi.  All  the  living  forces  of  French  Judaism  were 
deeply  affected. 

But  the  fall  was  neither  complete  nor  sudden.  It 
was  not  until  1306  that  the  Jews  were  exiled  from 
France  by  Philip  the  Fair,  and  a  hundred  thousand 
persons  had  to  leave  the  country  in  which  their  nation 
had  long  flourished  and  to  whose  prosperity  they  had 
materially  contributed. 

The  expulsion  of  1306  withdrew  French  Judaism  to 
the  provinces  directly  attached  to  the  crown.  In  vain 
were  the  Jews  recalled  in  1315  "  at  the  general  cry  of 
the  people."  Only  a  very  few  profited  by  the  tolerance 
shown  them.  After  that  their  existence  was  troubled 
by  riots,  and  broken  in  upon  by  expulsions.  The 
schools,  of  old  so  flourishing,  fell  into  a  state  of  utter 
decay.  About  1360  France  could  not  count  six  Jewish 
scholars,  and  the  works  of  the  time  show  to  what  degree 
of  degradation  rabbinical  studies  had  sunk.  With  the 
expulsion  of  1394  Charles  VI  dealt  the  finishing  stroke. 
Thereafter  French  Judaism  was  nothing  but  the  shadow 
of  itself.  Having  received  a  mortal  wound  in  1306,  its 
life  up  to  the  final  expulsion  in  1394  was  one  long 
death-agony. 

Thus  disappeared  that  French  Judaism  which  con- 
tributed so  large  a  portion  to  the  economic  and  intel- 
lectual civilization  of  its  fatherland  during  the  time 
the  sun  of  tolerance  shone  on  its  horizon,  but  which 
was  destined  to  perish  the  moment  the  greed  of  princes 
and  the  fanaticism  of  priests,  hoodwinking  the  masses, 
united  to  overwhelm  it.  Nevertheless  the  three  centu- 
ries of  fruitful  activity  were  not  entirely  lost  to  the 


204  EASHI 

future;  and  the  Jews  of  France,  who  had  gone  in 
numbers  to  foreign  lands,  carried  with  them  their  books 
and  their  ideals. 

Ill 

For  a  long  time  previous  to  the  events  just  recorded, 
Eashi  and  the  Tossafists — the  two  words  summing  up 
the  whole  intellectual  movement  of  the  Jews  of  France 
-^-had  brought  to  all  Judaism  the  reputation  of  the 
academies  of  Champagne  and  of  Ile-de-France.  "  He- 
brew literature  in  France,"  wrote  E.  Carmoly,  "exer- 
cised upon  the  Jewish  world  the  same  influence  that 
French  literature  exercised  upon  European  civilization 
in  general.  Everywhere  the  Biblical  and  Talmudic 
works  of  Troyes,  Eameru,  Dampierre,  and  Paris  became 
the  common  guides  of  the  synagogues."  Eashi's  com- 
mentaries, in  especial,  spread  rapidly  and  were  widely 
copied,  sometimes  enlarged  by  additions,  sometimes 
mutilated  and  truncated.  It  is  for  this  reason  that 
certain  commentaries  of  his  no  longer  exist,  or  exist  in 
incomplete  form. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  thir- 
teenth century  relations  between  remote  countries  and 
Christendom  were  rare,  and  that  the  Christian  and  the 
Mohammedan  worlds  had  scarcely  begun  to  open  up  to 
each  other  and  come  into  contact,  it  is  readily  under- 
stood why  Eashi  was  not  known  in  Arabic  countries 
in  his  life-time,  or  even  immediately  after  his  death, 
and  why  he  exercised  no  influence  upon  Maimonides, 
who  died  exactly  a  hundred  years  after  him.  In  the 
Orient  there  are  no  signs  of  his  influence  until  the  end 
of  the  twelfth  century.  In  1192,  barely  eighty 


THE  INFLUENCE  OP  EASHI  205 

after  Rashi's  death,  an  exilarch  had  one  of  his  commen- 
taries copied;  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth 
century  we  find  the  commentator  Samuel  ben  Nissim,  of 
Aleppo,  making  a  citation  from  Rashi. 

But  it  is  naturally  in  the  regions  nearest  to  France 
that  Rashi's  influence  made  itself  most  felt.  The  pro- 
found Talmudist,  Zerahiah  ha-Levi,  who  lived  at  Lunel 
(1125-1186),  rather  frequently  cites  "R.  Solomon  the 
Frenchman,"  and  contents  himself  with  merely  re- 
ferring to  Rashi's  commentary  without  quoting  in  full, 
a  fact  which  shows  that  the  work  was  widely  spread  in 
the  Provence.  A  number  of  years  later,  about  1245, 
Meir,  son  of  Simon  of  Narbonne,  wrote  in  his  apologetic 
work,  "  The  Holy  War "  :  "  The  commentaries  are  un- 
derstood by  all  readers,  for  the  least  as  well  as  the  most 
important  things  are  perfectly  explained  in  them. 
Since  their  appearance,  there  is  not  a  rabbi  who  has 
studied  without  using  them."  I  have  already  referred 
to  the  testimony  of  Menahem  ben  Zerah ;144  to  his  may 
be  added  that  of  another  Provengal,  Estori  Parhi,  who 
left  France  in  1306  to  visit  Spain,  and  wrote  an  in- 
teresting book  of  Halakah  and  of  recollections  of  his 
travels.  About  1320,  David  d'Estella,  philosopher  and 
poet,  wrote :  "  It  is  from  France  that  God  has  sent 
us  a  bright  light  for  all  Israel  in  the  person  of  R.  Solo- 
mon ben  Isaac."  Rashi  was  also  cited  in  terms  of 
praise  by  the  brilliant  commentator  and  philosopher 
Menahem  ben  Solomon  Meiiri,  of  Perpignan  (1249- 
1306),  and  by  the  casuist  and  theologian  Jacob  de 
Bagnols  (about  1357-1361),  grandson  of  David  d'Es- 
tella. 
14 


206  EASHI 

From  the  Provence,  Rashi's  renown  spread  on  the  one 
side  to  Italy,  and  on  the  other  to  Spain.  His  Biblical 
commentary  was  used  by  Benjamin  ben  Abraham  Anaw 
(about  1240),  of  Rome,  whose  brother  Zedekiah  was  the 
author  of  the  Halakic  and  ritual  collection  Shibbole 
JidrLeTcet  (The  Gleaned  Sheaves),  a  work  written  in  the 
second  half  of  the  thirteenth  century,  which  owes  much 
to  Rashi  and  his  successors.  The  celebrated  scholar  and 
poet  Immanuel  ben  Solomon  Romi  (about  1265-1330) 
seems  to  have  known  Rashi,  one  of  whose  Biblical 
explanations  he  cites  for  the  purpose  of  refuting  it. 
The  influence  of  the  French  commentator  is  more 
apparent  in  the  works  of  the  Italian  philosopher  and 
commentator  Solomon  Yedidiah  (about  1285-1330) 
and  the  commentator  Isaiah  da  Trani  (end  of  the 
thirteenth  century). 

Rashi's  influence  was  more  fruitful  of  results  in 
Spain,  where  intellectual  activity  was  by  far  more 
developed  than  in  Italy.  His  renown  soon  crossed  the 
Pyrenees,  and,  curiously  enough,  the  Spanish  exegetes, 
disciples  of  the  Hayyoudjes  and  the  Ibn-Djanahs 
availed  themselves  of  his  Biblical  commentary,  despite 
its  inferiority  from  a  scientific  point  of  view.  They  did 
not  fail,  it  is  true,  occasionally  to  dispute  it.  This  was 
the  case  with  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra,  who  possibly  came  to 
know  Rashi's  works  during  his  sojourn  in  France,  and 
combated  Rashi's  grammatical  explanations  without 
sparing  him  his  wonted  sharp-edged  witticisms.  To 
Abraham  Ibn  Ezra  has  been  attributed  the  following 
poem  in  Rashi's  honor,  without  doubt  wrongfully  so, 
although  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra  never  recoiled  from  con- 
tradictions. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  RASHI  207 

A  star  hath  arisen  on  the  horizon  of  France  and  shineth 
afar. 

Peaceful  it  came,  with  all  its  cortege,  from  Sinai  and 
Zion. 

....  The  blind  he  enlightens,  the  thirsty  delights  with 
his  honey-comb, 

He  whom  men  call  Parshandata,  the  Torah's  clear  in- 
terpreter. 

All  doubts  he  solves,  whose  books  are  Israel's  joy, 

Who  pierceth  stout  walls,  and  layeth  bare  the  law's  mys- 
terious sense. 

For  him  the  crown  is  destined,  to  him  belongeth  royal 
homage. 

When  one  sees  with  what  severity  and  injustice 
Abraham  Ibn  Ezra  treats  the  French  commentator,  one 
may  well  doubt  whether  this  enthusiastic  eulogy  sprang 
from  his  pen,  capricious  though  we  know  him  to  have 
been.  "  The  Talmud,"  he  said,  "  has  declared  that  the 
Peshat  must  never  lose  its  rights.  But  following  gen- 
erations gave  the  first  place  to  Derash,  as  Eashi  did,  who 
pursued  this  method  in  commenting  upon  the  entire 
Bible,  though  he  believed  he  was  using  Peshat.  In 
his  works  there  is  not  one  rational  explanation  out  of  a 
thousand."  As  I  have  said,  Eashi  and  Ibn  Ezra  were 
not  fashioned  to  understand  each  other.1*  The  com- 
mentaries of  David  Kimhi"*  contain  no  such  sharp 
criticisms.  By  birth  Kimhi  was  a  Provengal,  by  literary 
tradition  a  Spaniard.  He  often  turned  Eashi's  Biblical 
commentaries  to  good  account  for  himself.  Sometimes 
he  did  not  mention  Eashi  by  name,  sometimes  he  re- 
ferred to  him  openly. 


208  KASHI 

A  pompous  eulogy  of  Eashi  was  written  by  Moses  ben 
Nahman,  or  Nahmanides,147  in  the  introduction  to  his 
commentary  on  the  Pentateuch;  and  the  body  of  the 
work  shows  that  he  constantly  drew  his  inspiration  from 
Eashi  and  ever  had  Eashi  before  his  eyes.  At  the  same 
time  he  also  opposes  Eashi,  either  because  the  free  ways 
of  the  French  rabbi  shocked  him,  or  because  the  French- 
man's naive  rationalism  gave  offense  to  his  mysticism. 
In  fact,  it  is  known  that  Nahmanides  is  one  of  the  first 
representatives  of  Kabbalistic  exegesis,  and  his  example 
contributed  not  a  little  toward  bringing  it  into  credit. 
Even  the  author  of  the  Zohar — that  Bible  of  the 
Kabbalah,  which  under  cover  of  false  authority  exercised 
so  lasting  an  influence  upon  Judaism — whether  or  not 
he  was  Moses  of  Leon  (about  1250-1305)  used  for  his 
exegesis  the  commentary  of  Eashi,  without,  of  course, 
mentioning  it  by  name,  and  sometimes  he  even  repro- 
duced it  word  for  word.  The  Kabbalist  exegete  Bahya 
or  Behaia  ben  Asher,  of  Saragossa,  in  his  commentary 
on  the  Pentateuch  (1291)  cites  Eashi  as  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal representatives  of  Peshat — behold  how  far  we  have 
gotten  from  Ibn  Ezra,  and  how  Eashi  is  cleared  of 
unjust  contempt. 

Although  Nahmanides  was  wrongly  held  to  have 
been  the  disciple  of  Judah  Sir  Leon,  it  was  he  who 
introduced  into  Spain  the  works  and  the  method  of 
French  Talmudists,  whom  he  possibly  came  to  know 
through  his  masters.  Thus  the  Spanish  Talmudists, 
though  they  boasted  such  great  leaders  as  Alfasi  and 
Maimonides,  nevertheless  accepted  also  the  heritage  of 
the  French  academies.  Eashi's  influence  is  perceptible 
and  acknowledged  in  the  numerous  Talmudic  writings 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  209 

of  Solomon  ben  Adret,"8  and  it  is  clearly  manifest  in  the 
commentary  on  Alfasi  by  Nissim  Gerundi  (about  1350), 
who  copies  Eashi  literally,  at  the  same  time  developing 
his  thought,  not  infrequently  over-elaborating  it.  He 
also  refutes  Eashi  at  times,  but  his  refutation  is  often 
wrong.  The  man,  however,  who  best  represents  the 
fusion  of  Spanish  and  French  Talmudism  was  assuredly 
Asher  ben  Jehiel,149  who,  a  native  of  the  banks  of  the 
Ehine,  implanted  in  Spain  the  spirit  of  French  Ju- 
daism, and  in  his  abridgment  of  the  Talmud  united 
Spanish  tradition,  whose  principal  representative  was 
Alfasi,  with  Franco-German  tradition,  whose  uncon- 
tested  leader  was  Eashi. 

Since  that  time  Talmudic  activity,  the  creative  force 
of  which  seems  to  have  been  exhausted,  has  been  under- 
going a  change  of  character.  Asher  ben  Jehiel,  or,  as 
he  has  been  called,  Eosh,  terminated  an  important 
period  of  rabbinical  literature,  the  period  of  the 
Rishonim.  We  have  seen  how  during  this  period 
Bashi's  reputation,  at  first  confined  within  the  limits 
of  his  native  province,  extended  little  by  little,  until  it 
spread  over  the  surrounding  countries,  like  the  tree  of 
which  Daniel  speaks,  "whose  height  reached  unto  the 
heaven,  and  the  sight  thereof  to  all  the  earth;  whose 
leaves  were  fair,  and  the  fruit  thereof  much  "  (Dan.  iv. 
20-21). 


CHAPTER  XII 

FBOM  THE  EXPULSION  OF  THE  JEWS  FBOM 
FRANCE  TO  THE  PEESENT  TIME 

It  might  be  supposed  that  the  Jews  of  France,  chased 
from  their  fatherland,  and  so  deprived  of  their  schools, 
would  have  disappeared  entirely  from  the  scene  of 
literary  history,  and  that  the  intellectual  works  brought 
into  being  by  their  activity  in  the  domains  of  Biblical 
exegesis  and  Talmudic  jurisprudence  would  have  been 
lost  forever.  Such  was  by  no  means  the  case.  It  has 
been  made  clear  that  the  French  school  exerted  influence 
outside  of  France  from  the  twelfth  to  the  fourteenth 
century,  and  we  shall  now  see  how  the  Jews  of  France, 
saving  their  literary  treasures  in  the  midst  of  the  dis- 
turbances, carried  their  literature  to  foreign  countries, 
to  Piedmont  and  to  Germany.  When  the  Jews  of  Ger- 
many were  expelled  in  turn,  Poland  became  the  centre 
of  Judaism,  and  the  literary  tradition  was  thus  main- 
tained without  interruption  up  to  the  present  time.  It 
is  an  unique  example  of  continuity.  The  vitality  of 
Judaism  gained  strength  in  the  misfortunes  that  suc- 
cessively assailed  it, 

Per  damna,  per  caedes,  ab  ipso 
Ducit  opes  animumque  ferro. 

A  large  number  of  Jews  exiled  from  France  estab- 
lished themselves  in  the  north  of  Italy,  where  they 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  211 

formed  distinct  communities  faithful  to  the  ancient 
traditions.  Thus  they  propagated  the  works  of  the 
French  rabbis.  Rashi's  commentaries  and  the  ritual 
collections  following  his  teachings  were  widely  copied 
there,  and  of  course,  truncated  and  mutilated.  They 
served  both  as  the  text-books  of  students  and  as  the 
breviaries,  so  to  speak,  of  scholars. 

They  also  imposed  themselves,  as  we  have  seen,  upon 
the  Spanish  rabbis,  who  freely  recognized  the  superiority 
of  the  Jews  of  France  and  Germany  in  regard  to  Tal- 
mudic  schools.  Isaac  ben  Sheshet "°  said,  "  From  France 
goes  forth  the  Law,  and  the  word  of  God  from 
Germany."  Rashi's  influence  is  apparent  in  the  Tal- 
mudic  writings  of  this  rabbi,  as  well  as  in  the  works, 
both  Talmudic  and  exegetic  in  character,  of  his  successor 
Simon  ben  Zemah  Duran,m  and  in  the  purely  exegetic 
works  of  the  celebrated  Isaac  Abrabanel  (1437-1509), 
who  salutes  in  Rashi  "  a  father  in  the  province  of  the 
Talmud."  It  was  in  the  fifteenth  century  that  some  of 
the  super-commentaries  were  made  to  Rashi's  commen- 
tary on  the  Pentateuch.  The  most  celebrated — and  justly 
celebrated — is  that  of  Elijah  ben  Abraham  Mizrahi,  a 
Hebrew  scholar,  mathematician,  and  philosopher,  who 
lived  in  Turkey.  His  commentary,  says  Wogue,  "is  a 
master-piece  of  logic,  keen-wittedness,  and  Talmudic 
learning." 

However,  as  if  the  creative  force  of  the  Jews  had  been 
exhausted  by  a  prolific  period  lasting  several  centuries, 
Rashi's  commentaries  were  not  productive  of  original 
works  in  a  similar  style.  Accepted  everywhere,  they 
became  the  law  everywhere,  but  they  did  not  stimulate 


212  KASHI 

to  fresh  effort.  Scholars  followed  him,  as  the  poet  said, 
in  adoring  his  footsteps  from  afar. 

For  if  his  works  had  spent  their  impulse,  his  person- 
ality, on  the  other  hand,  became  more  and  more  popular. 
Legends  sprang  up  ascribing  to  him  the  attributes  of  a 
saint  and  universal  scholar,  almost  a  magician.181  He 
was  venerated  as  the  father  of  rabbinical  literature.  In 
certain  German  communities,  he,  together  with  a  few 
other  rabbis,  is  mentioned  in  the  prayer  recited  in  com- 
memoration of  the  dead,  and  his  name  is  followed  by  the 
formula,  "  who  enlightened  the  eyes  of  the  Captivity  by 
his  commentaries."  Rashi's  commentaries  not  only  exer- 
cised profound  influence  upon  the  literary  movement  of 
the  Jews,  but  also  wove  a  strain  into  the  destinies  of 
the  Jews  of  France  and  Germany.  During  this  entire 
period  of  terror,  the  true  middle  ages  of  the  Jews,  for 
whom  the  horrors  of  the  First  Crusade,  like  a  "disas- 
trous twilight,"  did  not  draw  to  an  end  until  the  bright 
dawn  of  the  French  Revolution,  the  thing  that  sustained 
and  animated  them,  that  enabled  them  to  bear  pillage 
and  exploitation,  martyrdom  and  exile,  was  their  unre- 
mitting study  of  the  Bible  and  the  Talmud.  And  how 
could  they  have  become  so  passionately  devoted  to  the 
reading  of  the  two  books,  if  Eashi  had  not  given  them  the 
key,  if  he  had  not  thus  converted  the  books  into  a  safe- 
guard for  the  Jews,  a  lamp  in  the  midst  of  darkness,  a 
bright  hope  against  alien  persecutions  ? 

Rashi's  prestige  then  became  so  great  that  the  prin- 
cipal Jewish  communities  claimed  him  as  their  own,188 
and  high-standing  families  alleged  that  they  were  con- 
nected with  him.  It  is  known  that  the  celebrated  mystic 
Eleazar  of  Worms  (1160-1230)  is  a  descendant  of  his. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  213 

A  certain  Solomon  Simhah,  of  Troyes,  in  1297  wrote  a 
casuistic,  ethical  work  in  which  he  claims  to  belong  to 
the  fourth  generation  descended  from  Eashi  beginning 
with  Bashi's  sons-in-law.  The  family  of  the  French 
rabbi  may  be  traced  down  to  the  thirteenth  century. 
At  that  time  mention  is  made  of  a  Samuel  ben  Jacob,  of 
Troyes,  who  lived  in  the  south  of  France.  And  it  is  also 
from  Eashi  that  the  family  Luria,  or  Loria,  pretends  to 
be  descended,  although  the  titles  for  its  claim  are  not 
incontestably  authentic.  The  name  of  Loria  comes,  not, 
as  has  been  said,  from  the  river  Loire,  but  from  a  little 
city  of  Italy,  and  the  family  itself  may  have  originated 
in  Alsace.  Its  head,  Solomon,  son  of  Samuel  Spira 
(about  1375),  traced  his  connection  with  Eashi  through 
his  mother,  a  daughter  of  Mattathias  Treves,  one  of  the 
last  French  rabbis.  The  daughter  of  Solomon,  Miriam 
(this  name  seems  to  have  been  frequent  in  Bashi's 
family),  was,  it  appears,  a  scholar.  It  is  certain  that 
the  family  has  produced  illustrious  offspring,  among 
them  Yosselmann  of  Eosheim  (about  1554),  the  famous 
rabbi  and  defender  of  the  Jews  of  the  Empire;  Elijah 
Loanz  (about  1564-1616),  wandering  rabbi,  Kabbalist, 
and  commentator;  Solomon  Luria15*  (died  in  1573  at 
Lublin),  likewise  a  Kabbalist  and  Talmudist,  but  of  the 
highest  rank,  on  account  of  his  bold  thinking  and  sense 
of  logic,  who  renewed  the  study  of  the  Tossafists;  and 
Jehiel  Heilprin  (about  1725),  descended  from  Luria 
through  his  mother,  author  of  a  valuable  and  learned 
Jewish  chronicle  followed  by  an  index  of  rabbis.  He 
declared  he  had  seen  a  genealogical  table  on  which 
Eashi's  name  appeared  establishing  his  descent  from  so 
remote  an  ancestor  as  Johanan  ha-Sandlar  and  includ- 


214  EASHI 

ing  Eashi  in  the  steps.1"  This  family,  which  was  divided 
into  two  branches,  the  Heilprins  and  the  Lurias,  still 
counts  among  its  members  renowned  scholars  and  esti- 
mable merchants. 

As  if  the  numberless  copies  of  his  commentaries  had 
not  sufficed  to  spread  Eashi's  popularity,  the  discovery 
of  printing  lent  its  aid  in  giving  it  the  widest  possible 
vogue.  The  commentary  on  the  Pentateuch  is  the  first 
Hebrew  work  of  which  the  date  of  printing  is  known. 
The  edition  was  published  at  Eeggio  at  the  beginning  of 
1475  by  the  printer  Abraham  ben  Garton.  Zunz 
reckoned  that  up  to  1818  there  were  seventeen  editions 
in  which  the  commentary  appeared  alone,  and  one 
hundred  and  sixty  in  which  it  accompanied  the  text. 
Some  modifications  were  introduced  into  the  commentary 
either  because  of  the  severity  of  the  censors  or  because  of 
the  prudence  of  the  editors.  Among  the  books  that  the 
Inquisition  confiscated  in  1753  in  a  small  city  of  Italy, 
there  were  twenty-one  Pentateuchs  with  Eashi's  com- 
mentary. 

All  the  printed  editions  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud 
are  accompanied  by  Eashi's  commentaries  in  the  inner 
column  and  by  the  Tossafot  in  the  outer  column. 

Eashi's  authority  gained  in  weight  more  and  more, 
and  he  became  representative  in  ordinary,  as  it  were,  of 
Talmudic  exegesis.  This  fact  is  made  evident  by  a 
merely  superficial  survey  of  the  work  Bet  Yosef  (House 
of  Joseph),  which  is,  one  may  say,  an  index  to  rabbinical 
literature.  Eashi  is  mentioned  here  on  every  page.  He 
is  the  official  commentator  of  the  Talmudic  text.  The 
author  of  the  Bet  Yosef,  the  learned  Talmudist  and 
Kabbalist  Joseph  ben  Ephraim  Karo  (born  1448,  died 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  215 

at  Safed,  Palestine,  at  87  years  of  age),  places  Eashi's 
Biblical  commentary  on  the  same  plane  as  the  Aramaic 
translation  of  the  Bible.  He  recommends  that  it  be 
read  on  the  Sabbath,  at  the  same  time  as  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  Targum.  Luria  goes  even  further.  According 
to  him,  when  the  Targum  and  Eashi  cannot  be  read  at 
the  same  time,  preference  should  be  given  to  Eashi, 
since  he  is  more  easily  understood,  and  renders  the  text 
more  intelligible. 

Eashi's  commentary,  therefore,  entered  into  the  re- 
ligious life  of  the  Jews.  It  is  chiefly  the  commentaries 
on  the  Five  Books  of  Moses  and  the  Five  Megillot,  the 
Scriptural  books  forming  part  of  the  synagogue  liturgy, 
that  were  widely  circulated  in  print  and  were  made  the 
basis  of  super-commentaries.  The  best  of  these  are  the 
super-commentary  of  Simon  Ashkenazi,  a  writer  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  born  in  Frankfort  and  died  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  the  clear,  ingenious  super-commentary  of 
Sabbataii  ben  Joseph  Bass,  printer  and  bibliographer, 
born  in  1641,  died  at  Krotoszyn  in  1718. 

The  other  representatives  of  the  French  school  of 
exegetes  have  fallen  into  oblivion.  Eashi  alone  survived, 
and  what  saved  him,  I  greatly  fear,  were  the  Halakic 
and  Haggadic  elements  pervading  his  commentary.  An 
editor  who  ventured  to  undertake  the  publication  (in 
1705)  of  the  commentary  on  the  Pentateuch  by  Samuel 
ben  Mei'r,"*  complains  in  the  preface  that  his  contem- 
poraries found  in  it  nothing  worth  occupying  their  time. 
Eashi's  commentary  was  better  adapted  to  the  average 
intellects  and  to  the  Talmudic  culture  of  its  readers. 

Eashi's  Talmudic  commentary,  also,  was  more  gener- 
ally studied  than  other  commentaries,  and  gave  a  more 


216  EASHI 

stimulating  impulse  to  rabbinical  literature.  Teachers 
and  masters  racked  their  brains  to  discover  in  it  unex- 
pected difficulties,  for  the  sake  of  solving  them  in  the 
most  ingenious  fashion.  This  produced  the  kind  of  liter- 
ature known  as  Hiddushim,  Novellae,  and  DikduTcim, 
subtleties.  A  rabbi,  for  example,  would  set  himself  the 
task  of  counting  the  exact  number  of  times  the  expres- 
sion "  that  is  to  say  "  occurs  in  the  commentary  on  the 
first  three  Talmudic  treatises.  Jacob  ben  Joshua  Falk 
(died  1648),  who  believed  Eashi  had  appeared  to  him  in 
a  dream,  attempted  in  his  "  Defense  of  Solomon "  to 
clear  the  master  of  all  attacks  made  upon  him.  Solomon 
Luria  and  Samuel  Edels  (about  1555-1631),  or,  as  is 
said  in  the  schools,  the  Maharshal  and  the  Maharsha, 
explain  the  difficult  passages  of  Eashi's  Talmudic  com- 
mentary, sometimes  by  dint  of  subtlety,  sometimes  by 
happy  corrections.  Still  more  meritorious  are  the  efforts 
of  Joel  Sirkes  (died  in  1640  at  Cracow),  who  often 
skilfully  altered  Eashi's  text  for  the  better. 

By  a  curious  turn  in  affairs  it  was  the  Christians  who 
in  the  province  of  exegesis  took  up  the  legacy  be- 
queathed by  Eashi.  While  grammar  and  exegesis  by 
reason  of  neglect  remained  stationary  among  the  Jews, 
the  humanists  cultivated  them  eagerly.  Taste  for  the 
classical  languages  had  aroused  a  lively  interest  in 
Hebrew  and  a  desire  to  know  the  Scriptures  in  the 
original.  The  Eeformation  completed  what  the  Eenais- 
sance  had  begun,  and  the  Protestants  placed  the  Hebrew 
Bible  above  the  Vulgate.  Eashi,  it  is  true,  did  not  gain 
immediately  from  this  renewal  of  Biblical  studies; 
greater  inspiration  was  derived  from  the  more  method- 
ical and  more  scientific  Spaniards.  But  his  eclipse  was 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  217 

only  momentary.  Kichard  Simon,  who  gave  so  vigorous 
an  impulse  to  Biblical  studies  in  France,  and  who,  if 
Bossuet  had  not  forestalled  him,  would  possibly  have 
originated  a  scientific  method  of  exegesis,  profited  by 
the  commentaries  of  the  man  he  called  major  et  prae- 
stantior  theologus.  All  the  Christians  with  pretensions 
to  Hebrew  scholarship,  who  endeavored  to  understand 
the  Bible  in  the  original,  studied  Eashi,  not  only  because 
he  helped  them  to  grasp  the  meaning  of  the  text,  but 
also  because  in  their  eyes  he  was  the  official  rabbinical 
authority.  He  was  quoted,  abridged,  and  plagiarized — 
a  clear  sign  of  popularity.  Soon  the  need  arose  to  render 
him  accessible  to  all  theologians,  and  he  was  translated 
into  the  academic  language,  that  is,  into  Latin.  Partial 
translations  appeared  in  great  number  between  1556  and 
1710.  Finally,  J.  F.  Breithaupt  made  a  complete 
translation,  for  which  he  had  recourse  to  various  manu- 
scripts. His  work  is  marked  by  clear  intelligence  and 
great  industry.  This  translation  as  well  as  the  com- 
mentary of  Nicholas  de  Lyra  might  still  be  consulted 
with  profit  by  an  editor  of  Eashi. 

Since  the  Christians  did  not  devote  themselves  to  the 
Talmud  as  much  as  to  the  Bible,  they  made  but  little 
use  of  the  Talmudic  commentaries  of  the  French  rabbi. 
Nevertheless  John  Buxtorf  the  Elder,  who  calls  Eashi 
consummatissimus  ille  theologize  judaicae  doctor,  fre- 
quently appeals  to  his  authority  in  the  "Hebrew  and 
Chaldaic  Lexicon."  Other  names  might  be  mentioned 
besides  Buxtorf's. 

Nor  did  Eashi  fail  to  receive  the  supreme  honor  of 
being  censored  by  the  Church.  Under  St.  Louis  autos- 
da-fe  were  made  of  his  works,  and  later  the  Inquisition 


218  EASHI 

pursued  them  with,  its  rigorous  measures.  They  were 
prohibited  in  Spain  and  burnt  in  Italy.  The  ecclesiasti- 
cal censors  eliminated  or  corrected  whatever  seemed  to 
them  an  attempt  upon  the  dignity  of  religion.  At  the 
present  time  many  French  ecclesiastics  know  Eashi  only 
for  his  alleged  blasphemies  against  Christianity. 

While  the  Catholics  and  Protestants  who  possessed 
Hebrew  learning  applied  themselves  to  the  study  of 
Eashi,  among  the  Jews 

"  he  was  always  revered,  always  admired,  even  as  an 
exegete,  but  he  was  admired  to  so  high  a  degree  that  no  one 
thought  of  continuing  his  work  and  of  deepening  the  furrow 
he  had  so  vigorously  opened.  It  seemed  as  though  his 
commentary  had  raised  the  Pillars  of  Hercules  of  Biblical 
knowledge  and  as  though  with  him  exegesis  had  said  its 
last  word.  During  this  period  the  grammatical  and  ra- 
tional study  of  the  word  of  God  fell  into  more  and  more 
neglect,  and  its  real  meaning  became  increasingly  obscured. 
The  place  of  a  serious  and  sincere  exegesis  was  taken  by 
frivolous  combinations,  subtle  comparisons,  and  mystical 
interpretations  carried  out  according  to  preconceived 
notions  and  based  on  the  slightest  accident  of  form  in  the 
text.  Rashi  had  many  admirers,  but  few  successors."  15T 

Isaiah  Horwitz  (1570-1630),  whose  ritual  and  ethical 
collection  is  still  very  popular  in  Eastern  Europe,  com- 
pares Eashi's  commentaries  to  the  revelation  on  Sinai. 
"  In  every  one  of  his  phrases,"  he  says,  "  marvellous 
things  are  concealed,  for  he  wrote  under  Divine  inspira- 
tion." His  son  Sabbata'i  Sheftel  is  even  more  striking  in 
his  expressions ;  he  says,  "  I  know  by  tradition  that  who- 
ever finds  a  defect  in  Eashi,  has  a  defect  in  his  own 
brain."  It  was  related  that  when  Eashi  was  worried  by 
some  difficult  question,  he  shut  himself  up  in  a  room, 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  219 

where  God  appeared  to  throw  light  upon  his  doubts. 
The  apparition  came  to  him  when  he  was  plunged  in  pro- 
found sleep,  and  he  did  not  return  to  his  waking  senses 
until  some  one  brought  him  an  article  from  the  wall  of 
his  room.  Thus  a  superstitious,  sterile  respect  replaced 
the  intelligent  and  productive  admiration  of  the  earlier 
centuries. 

To  revive  the  scientific  spirit  and  the  rational  study 
of  the  Scriptures,  a  Moses  Mendelssohn  (1729-1786) 
was  needed.  With  the  year  1780,  when  his  translation 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  his  commentary  upon  it  appeared, 
the  renaissance  of  Jewish  learning  commenced ;  even  the 
study  of  the  Talmud,  regenerated  by  the  critical  spirit 
of  the  time,  was  resumed.  Mendelssohn  himself  drew 
largely  upon  Rashi's  commentary,  correcting  the  text 
when  it  seemed  corrupt,  trying  to  decipher  the  French 
laazim,  and  paying  attention  to  the  essential  meaning  of 
Rashi's  explanations,  either  for  the  sake  of  completing  or 
defending  them,  or  for  the  sake  of  refuting  them  in  the 
name  of  taste  and  good  sense.  His  collaborators  and 
disciples,  the  Biurists, — as  they  are  called,  after  Biur, 
the  general  title  of  their  works — desirous  of  reconciling 
the  natural  meaning  of  the  text  with  the  traditional 
interpretations,  often  turned  to  good  account  the  views 
of  the  French  commentator.  These  writings,  which 
renewed  the  rational  study  of  Hebrew  and  the  taste  for  a 
sound  exegesis,  worthily^  crown  the  work  begun  by  the 
rabbi  of  the  eleventh  century.  At  this  day  the  Perush 
of  Rashi  and  the  Biur  of  Mendelssohn  are  the  favorite 
commentaries  of  orthodox  Jews. 

Since  Mendelssohn  the  glorious  tradition  of  learning 
has  not  been  interrupted  again,  and  Rashi's  work  con- 


220  EASHI 

tinues  to  be  bound  up  with  the  destinies  of  Jewish 
literature.  The  nineteenth  century  will  make  a  place 
for  itself  in  the  annals  of  this  literature;  for  the  love 
of  Jewish  learning  has  inspired  numerous  scholars,  and 
the  renown  of  most  of  them  is  connected  with  Eashi. 
Zunz  (1794-1886)  became  known  in  1823  through  his 
essay  on  Eashi,  a  model  of  critical  skill  and  learning, 
despite  inevitable  mistakes  and  omissions.  Geiger™8 
won  a  name  for  himself  by  his  studies  on  the  French 
exegetic  school.  Heidenheim1"9  wrote  a  work  dis- 
tinguished for  subtlety,  to  defend  the  explanations  of 
Eashi  from  the  grammatical  point  of  view.  Samuel 
David  Luzzatto  (1800-1865),  with  his  usual  brilliancy, 
made  a  warm  defense  of  Eashi;  and,  finally,  I.  H. 
Weiss180  dedicated  to  him  a  study  dealing  with  certain 
definite  points  in  Eashi's  life  and  work.  When  Luzzatto 
took  up  the  defense  of  Eashi  with  ardor,  it  was  to  place 
him  over  against  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra,  who,  in  Luzzatto's 
opinion,  was  too  highly  exalted.  The  considerable 
progress  made  by  exegesis  and  philology  rendered  many 
scholars  aware  of  the  defectiveness  of  Eashi's  Biblical 
commentaries;  while  Ibn  Ezra  was  more  pleasing  to 
them  on  account  of  his  scientific  intellect  and  his  daring. 
But  the  French  commentator  lost  nothing  of  his  author- 
ity in  the  eyes  of  the  conservative  students  of  Hebrew, 
who  continued  to  see  in  him  an  indispensable  help. 
This  influence  of  Eashi's  contains  mixed  elements  of 
good  and  evil.  In  some  measure  he  created  the  fortune 
of  Midrashic  exegesis,  and  he  is  in  a  slight  degree 
responsible  for  the  relative  stagnation  of  Biblical  as 
compared  with  Talmudic  studies  in  Eastern  Europe. 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  EASHI  221 

In  Talmudic  literature,  on  the  contrary,  Kashi's 
authority  is  uncontested,  in  fact,  cannot  be  contested. 
Its  stimulating  impulse  is  not  yet  exhausted.  While 
the  Talmudists  of  the  old  school  saw  in  him  the  official, 
consecrated  guide,  the  Eapoports,1*1  the  Weisses,  the 
Frankels,192  all  who  cultivated  the  scientific  and  historic 
study  of  the  Talmud,  lay  stress  upon  the  excellence  of 
his  method  and  the  sureness  of  his  information.  About 
twelve  years  ago,  an  editor  wanted  to  publish  the  entire 
Talmud  in  one  volume.  He  obtained  the  authorization 
of  the  rabbis  only  upon  condition  that  he  printed  Kashi's 
commentary  along  with  the  text. 

Thus  Eashi's  reputation  has  not  diminished  in  the 
course  of  eight  centuries.  On  the  first  of  August,  1905, 
it  was  exactly  eight  hundred  years  that  the  eminent 
scholar  died  at  Troyes.  As  is  proper,  the  event  was 
marked  by  a  commemoration  of  a  literary  and  scientific 
character.  Articles  on  Eashi  appeared  in  the  Jewish 
journals  and  reviews.  Such  authorities  as  Dr.  Berliner, 
Mr.  W.  Bacher,  and  others,  sketched  his  portrait  and 
published  appreciations  of  his  works.  Dr.  Berliner, 
moreover,  issued  a  new  edition  of  Eashi's  Pentateuch 
Commentary  in  honor  of  the  anniversary,  and,  as  was 
mentioned  above,  Mr.  S.  Buber  celebrated  the  occasion 
by  inaugurating  the  publication  of  the  hitherto  unedited 
works  of  Eashi,  beginning  with  the  Sefer  ha-Orah. 


16 


CONCLUSION 

The  beautiful  unity  of  his  life  and  the  noble  simplicity 
of  his  nature  make  Rashi's  personality  one  of  the  most 
sympathetic  in  Jewish  history.  The  writings  he  left 
are  of  various  kinds  and  possess  various  interests  for  us. 
His  Decisions  and  Responsa  acquaint  us  with  his 
personal  traits,  and  with  the  character  of  his  contempo- 
raries; his  religious  poems  betray  the  profound  faith  of 
his  soul,  and  his  sensitiveness  to  the  woes  of  his  brethren. 
But  above  all  Rashi  was  a  commentator.  He  carved 
himself  a  niche  from  which  he  has  not  been  removed, 
and  though  his  work  as  a  commentator  has  been  copied, 
it  will  doubtless  remain  impossible  of  absolute  imitation. 
Rashi,  then,  is  a  commentator,  though  as  such  he  cannot 
aspire  to  the  glory  of  masters  like  Maimonides  and 
Jehudah  ha-Levi.  But  the  task  he  set  himself  was  to 
comment  upon  the  Bible  and  the  Talmud,  the  two  living 
sources  that  feed  the  great  stream  of  Judaism,  and  he 
fulfilled  the  task  in  a  masterly  fashion  and  conclusively. 
Moreover  he  touched  upon  nearly  all  branches  of  Jewish 
literature,  grammar,  exegesis,  history,  and  archaeology. 
In  short  his  commentaries  became  inseparable  from  the 
texts  they  explain.  For,  if  in  some  respects  his  work 
despite  all  this  may  seem  of  secondary  importance  and 
inferior  in  creative  force  to  the  writings  of  a  Saadia  or 
a  Maimonides,  it  gains  enormously  in  value  by  the  dis- 
cussion and  comment  it  evoked  and  the  influence  it 
exercised. 


CONCLUSION  223 

Kashi,  one  may  say,  is  one  of  the  fathers  of  rabbinical 
literature,  which  he  stamped  with  the  impress  of  his 
clear,  orderly  intellect.  Of  him  it  could  be  written: 
"With  him  began  a  new  era  for  Judaism,  the  era  of 
science  united  to  profound  piety." 

His  influence  was  not  limited  to  scholarly  circles.  He 
is  one  of  the  rare  writers  who  have  had  the  privilege 
of  becoming  truly  popular,  and  his  renown  was  not 
tarnished,  as  that  of  Maimonides  came  near  being  on 
account  of  bitter  controversies  and  violent  contests.  He 
was  not  the  awe-inspiring  master  who  is  followed  from 
afar;  he  was  the  master  to  whom  one  always  listens, 
whose  words  are  always  read ;  and  the  writers  who  imi- 
tate his  work — with  more  or  less  felicity — believe  them- 
selves inspired  by  him.  The  middle  ages  knew  no 
Jewish  names  more  famous  than  those  of  Jehudah  ha- 
Levi  and  Maimonides;  but  how  many  nowadays  read 
their  writings  and  understand  them  wholly?  The 
"  Diwan "  as  well  as  the  "  Guide  of  the  Perplexed " 
are  products  of  Jewish  culture  grafted  upon  Arabic 
culture.  They  do  not  unqualifiedly  correspond  to  present 
ideas  and  tastes.  Eashfs  work,  on  the  contrary,  is 
essentially  and  intimately  Jewish.  Judaism  could  re- 
nounce the  study  of  the  Bible  and  of  that  other  Bible, 
the  Talmud,  only  under  penalty  of  intellectual  suicide. 
And  since,  added  to  respect  for  these  two  monuments, 
is  the  difficulty  of  understanding  them,  the  commen- 
taries holding  the  key  to  them  are  assured  of  an  exist- 
ence as  along  as  theirs. 

Eashi's  writings,  therefore,  extend  beyond  the  range 
of  merely  occasional  works,  and  his  influence  will  not 
soon  die  out.  His  influence,  indeed,  is  highly  productive 


224  RASHI 

of  results,  since  his  commentaries  do  not  arrest  the 
march  of  science,  as  witness  his  disciples  who  enlarged 
and  enriched  the  ground  he  had  ploughed  so  vigorously, 
and  whose  fame  only  adds  to  the  lustre  of  Rashi's  name. 
The  field  he  commanded  was  the  entire  Jewish  culture 
of  France — of  France,  which  for  a  time  he  turned  into 
the  classic  land  of  Biblical  and  Talmudic  studies.  "  In 
him,"  says  M.  Israel  Levi,  "is  personified  the  Judaism 
of  Northern  France,  with  its  scrupulous  attachment  to 
tradition,  its  naive,  untroubled  faith,  and  its  ardent 
piety,  free  from  all  mysticism."  Nor  was  Rashi  confined 
to  France ;  his  great  personality  dominated  the  whole  of 
Judaism.  Dr.  M.  Berliner  writes :  "  Even  nowadays, 
after  eight  hundred  years  have  rolled  by,  it  is  from  him 
we  draw  our  inspiration, — we  who  cultivate  the  sacred 
literature, — it  is  his  school  to  which  we  resort,  it  is  his 
commentaries  we  study.  These  commentaries  are  and 
will  remain  our  light  in  the  principal  department  of 
our  intellectual  patrimony." 

Doubtless  Rashi  is  but  a  commentator,  yet  a  com- 
mentator without  peer  by  reason  of  his  value  and 
influence.  And,  possibly,  this  commentator  represents 
most  exactly,  most  powerfully,  certain  general  propen- 
sities of  the  Jewish  people  and  certain  main  tendencies 
of  Jewish  culture.  Rashi,  then,  has  a  claim,  universally 
recognized,  upon  a  high  place  of  honor  in  our  history 
and  in  our  literature. 


APPENDIX  I 
THE   FAMILY   OF   RASHI 


o  *» 


w 


APPENDIX  II 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 


APPENDIX  II 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

A.  THE  WOEKS  OF  RASHI 

A  critical  revision  of  Rashi's  works  remains  to  be  made. 
They  were  used  to  such  an  extent,  and,  up  to  the  time  when 
printing  gave  deflniteness  to  existing  diversities,  so  many 
copies  were  made,  that  some  of  the  works  were  preserved 
in  bad  shape,  others  were  lost,  and  others  again  received 
successive  additions. 

1.  BIBLICAL  COMMENTABIES. — They  cover  nearly  all  the 
twenty-four  books  of  the  Bible. 

Job. — "  On  Job  the  manuscripts  are  divided  into  series, 
according  to  whether  or  not  they  break  oft  at  xl.  28  of  the 
text.  The  one  series  gives  Rashi's  commentary  to  the  end; 
the  other,  on  the  ground  that  Rashi's  death  prevented  him 
from  finishing  his  work,  completes  the  commentary  with 
that  of  another  rabbi,  R.  Jacob  Nazir"  (Arsene  Darmeste- 
ter).  Geiger  attributes  this  supplementary  commentary, 
which  exists  in  several  versions,  to  Samuel  ben  Mei'r;  others 
attribute  it  to  Joseph  Kara.  Some  regard  it  as  a  compila- 
tion; others,  again,  assert  that  the  entire  commentary  was 
not  written  by  Rashi. 

Ezra  and  Nehemiah. — Some  authors  deny  that  Rashi  com- 
posed commentaries  on  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

Chronicles. — It  is  certain  that  the  commentary  on  Chroni- 
cles, which  does  not  occur  In  the  good  manuscripts,  and 
which  was  published  for  the  first  time  at  Naples  in  1487, 
is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  Rashi.  This  was  observed  by  so 
early  a  writer  as  Azulai,  and  it  has  been  clearly  demon- 
strated by  Weiss  (Kerem  Hemea,  v.,  232  et  seq.).  It 
seems  that  Rashi  did  not  comment  upon  Chronicles  at  all 
(in  spite  of  Zunz  and  Weiss).  Concerning  the  author  of 


233  KASHI 

the  printed  commentary  there  is  doubt  According  to  Zunz 
(Zur  Geschichte  und  Literatur,  p.  73),  it  must  have  been 
composed  at  Narbonne  about  1130-1140  by  the  disciples  of 
Saadia  (?). 

2.  TALMUDIC  COMMENTABIES. — Rashi  did  not  comment  on 
the  treatises  lacking  a  Gemara,  namely,  Eduyot,  Middot 
(the  commentary  upon  which  was  written  by  Shemaiah), 
and  Tamid  (in  the  commentary  on  which  Rashi  is  cited). 
It  is  calculated  that,  in  all,  Rashi  commented  on  thirty 
treatises  (compare  Azulai',  Shem  Jia-Gedolim,  s.  v.,  Weiss, 
and  below,  section  B,  2). 

Pesahim. — The  commentary  on  Pesahim  from  996  on  is 
the  work  of  Rashbam. 

Taanit. — So  early  a  writer  as  Emden  denied  to  Rashi  the 
authorship  of  the  commentary  on  Taanit;  and  his  conclu- 
sions are  borne  out  by  the  style.  There  was  a  commentary 
on  Taanit  cited  by  the  Tossafot,  which  forms  the  basis  of 
the  present  commentary;  and  this  may  have  belonged  to 
the  school  of  Rashi. 

Moed  Katan. — The  commentary  on  Moed  Katan  is  attri- 
buted by  Reifmann  to  Gershom  (Monatsschrift,  III).  Ac- 
cording to  B.  Zomber  (Rashi's  Commentary  on  Nedarim 
and  Moed  Katan,  Berlin,  1867),  who  shows  that  Gershom's 
commentary  is  different,  the  extant  commentary  is  a  first 
trial  of  Rashi's  and  was  later  recast  by  him.  This  would 
explain  the  differences  between  the  commentary  under  con- 
sideration and  the  one  joined  to  the  En  Jacob  and  to  Rif, 
which  is  more  complete  and  might  be  the  true  commentary 
by  Rashi.  These  conclusions  have  been  attacked  by  Rab- 
binowicz  (DiJcduke  Soferim,  II),  who  accepts  Reifmann's 
thesis.  Zomber  replied  in  the  Moreh  Derek,  Lyck,  1870;  and 
Rabbinowicz  in  turn  replied  in  the  Moreh  Jia-Moreh,  Munich, 
1871.  To  sum  up,  both  sides  agree  in  saying  that  the  basis 
of  the  present  commentary  was  modified  by  Rashi  or  by 
some  one  else.  According  to  I.  H.  Weiss  various  versions  of 
Rashi's  Commentary  were  current.  The  most  incomplete 
is  the  present  one.  That  accompanying  Rif  is  more  com- 
plete, though  also  not  without  faults. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  233 

Nedarim. — The  commentary  on  Nedarim,  from  22  b  to 
25b,  may  contain  a  fragment  by  R.  Gershom.  Nor,  to  judge 
from  the  style,  does  the  remainder  seem  to  belong  to  Rashi. 
Good  writers  do  not  cite  it.  Reifmann  attributes  it  to 
Isaiah  da  Trani,  Zomber  to  the  disciples  of  Rashi. 

Nazir. — Several  critics  deny  to  Rashi  the  authorship  of 
the  commentary  on  Nazir.  Although  there  are  no  strong 
reasons  for  so  doing,  the  doubt  exists;  for  differences  are 
pointed  out  between  this  and  the  other  commentaries.  P. 
Chajes  holds  that  Rashi's  disciples  are  responsible  for  the 
commentaries  on  Nedarim  and  Taanit. 

ZebaMm. — The  commentary  on  Zebahim  is  corrupt  and 
has  undergone  interpolations;  but  there  are  no  strong  rea- 
sons why  it  should  not  be  ascribed  to  Rashi. 

Baba  Batra. — Rashbam  completed  his  grandfather's  com- 
mentary on  Baba  Batra  from  29a  on,  or,  rather,  later 
writers  supplemented  Rashi's  commentary  with  that  of  his 
grandson.  This  supplement  is  to  be,  found  at  the  Bodleian 
in  a  more  abridged  and,  without  doubt,  in  a  more  authen- 
tic form. 

Makkot. — The  commentary  on  Makkot,  from  196  on,  was 
composed  by  Judah  ben  Nathan  (see  note  in  the  editions). 
It  seems  that  a  commentary  on  the  whole  by  Rashi  was 
known  to  Yomtob  ben  Abraham. 

Horafot. — The  commentary  on  Horaiot  was  not  written 
by  Rashi  (Reifmann,  Ha-Maggid  xxi.  47-49). 

Meilah. — It  is  more  certain  that  the  commentary  on 
Me'ilah  was  not  written  by  Rashi.  Numerous  errors  and 
additions  have  been  pointed  out.  According  to  a  manu- 
script of  Halberstamm  it  would  belong  to  Judah  ben 
Nathan. 

Keritot  and  Bekorot. — The  commentary  on  Keritot  is 
not  Rashi's,  and  that  on  Bekorot,  after  57b,  according  to 
Bezalel  Ashkenazi,  is  also  not  Rashi's. 

3.  PIBKE  ABOT. — The  commentary  on  the  Pirke  Abot, 
printed  for  the  first  time  at  Mentone  in  1560,  was  cited  by 
Simon  ben  Zemah  Duran  (d.  1444)  as  being  by  Rashi.  But 
Jacob  Emden  (d.  1776)  denies  Rashi's  authorship,  and 


234  EASHI 

justly  so.  One  manuscript  attributes  the  commentary  to 
Isaiah  da  Trani,  another  to  Kimhi.  Though  the  numerous 
copies  present  differences,  it  is  not  impossible  that  they 
are  derived  from  a  common  source,  which  might  be  Rashi's 
commentary;  for  despite  some  diffuseness  in  certain  pas- 
sages, the  present  commentary  is  in  his  style.  The  Italian 
laazim,  may  have  been  made  by  Italian  copyists. 

4.  BEBESHIT  KABBAH. — The  commentary  on  BeresTiit  Rab- 
bah.     According  to  A.  Epstein   (Magazin  of  Berliner,  xiv. 
Ha-Hoker   I),   this   commentary,    incorrectly   printed    (the 
first   time   at   Venice,    1568),    is    composed    of   two   differ- 
ent commentaries.     The  basis  of  the  first  is  the  commen- 
tary of  Kalonymos  ben  Sabbatai,  of  Rome;  the  second  is 
anonymous  and  of  later  date.     A  third  commentary  exists 
in  manuscript,  and  is  possibly  of  the  school  of  Rashi. 

Mention  should  be  made  of  a  commentary  on  the  Thirty- 
two  Rules  by  R.  Jos§  ha-Gelili,  attributed  to  Rashi  and 
published  in  the  Yeshurun  of  Kobak. 

5.  RESPONSA. — The    Responsa    of    Rashi    have    not  been 
gathered    together    into    one    collection.    Some    Responsa 
mixed  with  some  of  his  decisions  occur  in  the  compilations 
already  cited  and  in  the  following  Halakic  compilations: 
Eben  Jia-Ezer  by  Bliezer  ben  Nathan   (Prague,  1670),  Or 
Zarua,  by  Isaac  ben  Moses  of  Vienna  (I-II,  Zhitomir,  1862; 
III-V,  Jerusalem,  1887),  Shibbole  ha-LeJcet  by  Zedekiah  ben 
Abraham   Anaw    (Wilna,   1887,    ed.    Buber),   Mordecai,   by 
Mordecai  ben  Hillel  (printed  together  with  Rif),  Responsa 
by  Mei'r  of  Rothenberg  (Cremona,  1557;  Prague,  1608;  Lem- 
berg,  1860;  Berlin,  1891-92;  Budapest,  1896),  etc.  (see  below, 
section  B,  and  Buber,  Introd.  to  Sefer  Jia-Orah,  pp.  152  et 
seq. 

6.  In  rabbinical  literature  we  find  quotations  from  Re- 
sponsa collections  bearing  upon  special  points  in  Talmudic 
law,  such  as  ablutions,  the  making  and  the  use  of  Tefittin,  the 
Zizit,  the  order  of  the  Parashiot,  the  blessing  of  the  priests, 
the  ceremony  of  the  Passover  eve,  the  slaughter  of  animals, 
the  case   of   diseased   animals,   impurity   in   women,    etc. 


BIBLIOGEAPHY  235 

7.  These    collections    have    penetrated    in  part  into  the 
SEFEB  HA-PABDES,  the  MAHZOB  VITBY,  and  the  other  compila- 
tions mentioned  in  chap.  IX.    Upon  this  point  see  chap.  IX 
and  articles  by  A.  Epstein  and  S.  Poznanski  published  in 
the  Monatsschrift,  xll. 

8.  THE  LITURGICAL  POEMS  by  Rashi,  some  of  which  are 
printed  in  the  collections  of  Selihot  of  the  German  ritual, 
are  enumerated  by  Zunz  in  Synagogale  Poesie  des  Mittel- 
alters,  Berlin,  1865,  pp.  252-4. 

Three  books  have  been  wrongly  attributed  to  Rashi:  a 
medical  work,  Sefer  ha-Refuah;  a  grammatical  work,  Le- 
shon  Limmudim,  actually  composed  by  Solomon  ben  Abba 
Mari  of  Lunel;  and  an  entirely  fanciful  production  called 
Sefer  ha-Parnes  (incorrect  for  Sefer  ha-Pardes). 

B.  THE  EDITIONS  OF  RASHI'S  WOEKS 

I.  THE  BIBLICAL  COMMENTARIES  I. — According  to  A.  Dar- 
mesteter  "  twenty  different  editions  have  been  counted  of 
Rashi's  commentary,  complete  or  partial,  without  the  He- 
brew   text.     As    for    the    editions    containing    the    Bible 
together  with  Rashi's  commentary,  their  number  amounts 
to  seventeen  complete  editions  and  155  partial  editions,  of 
the   latter   of   which    114  are  for    the  Pentateuch   alone." 
The  list  of  these  editions  is  to  be  found  in  Fiirst,  Biblio- 
theca  judaica   (Leipsic,  1849,  2d  vol.  1851),  II,  pp.  78  et 
seg.;  Steinschneider,  Catalogue  of  the  Hebrew  Books  in  the 
Bodleian   Library    (Berlin,    1852-1860),    col.    2340-57;    Ben 
Jakob,  Ozar  ha-Sefarim  (Wilna,  1887),  pp.  629  et  seq.    The 
first  two  works  enumerate  also  the  super-commentaries  on 
Rashi. 

II.  Latin  Translations. — Besides  numerous  partial  trans- 
lations, also  listed  in  the  works  of  Fiirst  and  Steinschnei- 
der, a  complete   translation    exists    by    J.   F.    Breithaupt, 
Gotha,    1710   (Pentateuch)    and  1713-1714    (Prophets    and 
Hagiographa)  in  quarto. 

III.  German    Translations. — L.    Haymann,    R,   Solomon 
larchi,   Ausfiihrlicher    Commentar   iiber    den   Pentateuch. 
1st  vol.,  Genesis,  Bonn,  1883,  in  German  characters  and 


236  EASHI 

without  the  Hebrew  text.  Leopold  Dukes,  Rashi  zum  Pen- 
tateuch, Prague,  1833-1838,  in  Hebrew  characters  and  with 
the  Hebrew  text  opposite.  J.  Dessauer,  a  translation  into 
Judaeo-Gennan  with  a  vowelled  text,  Budapest,  1863.  Some 
fragmentary  translations  into  Judaeo-German  had  appeared 
before,  by  Broesch,  in  1560,  etc. 

2.  THE  TALMUDIC  COMMENTARIES. — All  the  editions  of  the 
Talmud  contain  Rashi's  commentary.    Up  to  the  present 
time  forty-five  complete  editions  of  the  Talmud  have  been 
counted. 

3.  RESPONSA. — Some  Responsa  addressed  to  the  rabbis 
of  Auxerre  were  published  by  A.  Geiger,  Melo  Hofnaim, 
Berlin,   1840.    Twenty-eight  Responsa  were  edited   by  B. 
Goldberg,  Hofes  Matmonim,  Berlin,  1845,  thirty  by  J.  Miil- 
ler,  Reponses   faites   par  de   celebres  rabbins  fran$ais  et 
lorrains  ties  xie  et  xiie  siecles,  Vienna,  1881.    Some  isolated 
Responsa  were  published  in  the  collection  of  Responsa  of 
Judah  ben   Asher    (50a,   52&),   Berlin,   1846,   in  the  Ozar 
Nehmad  II,  174,  in  Bet-Talmud  II,  pp.  296  and  341,  at  the 
end  of  the  study  on  Rashi  cited  below  in  section  C,  etc. 

4.  THE  SEFEE  HA-PABDES  was  printed  at  Constantinople 
in  1802  according  to  a  defective  copy.    The  editor  inter- 
calated fragments   of  the  Sefer  ha-Orah,   which   he   took 
from  an  often  illegible  manuscript. 

THE  MAHZOR  VITEY,  the  existence  of  which  was  revealed 
by  Luzzatto,  was  published  according  to  a  defective  manu- 
script of  the  British  Museum,  under  the  auspices  of  the 
literary  Society  Mekize  Nirdamim,  by  S.  Hurwitz,  Berlin, 
1890-1893,  8°. 

C.  CBITICAI,  WOBKS  OF  REFERENCE 

Book  I.  Chap.  I. — On  the  situation  of  the  Jews  in  France 
in  general,  the  following  works  may  be  read  with  profit: 

Zunz,  Zur  Geschichte  und  Literatur,  Berlin,  1845. 

Giidemann,  Geschichte  des  Erziehungswesens  und  der 
Cultur  der  Juden  in  Frarikreicli  und  Deutschland, 
Vienna,  1880,  8°  (Hebrew  translation  by  Friedberg 
under  the  title  Ha-Torah  weha-Hayim,  ed.  Achiassaf, 
Warsaw,  1896). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  237 

Berliner,  Aus  dem  Leben  der  deutschen  Juden  im  Mittelal- 

ter,  Berlin,  1900. 

Abrahams,  Jewish  Life  in  the  Middle  Ages,  Jewish  Publi- 
cation Society  of  America,  Philadelphia,  1896.  Con- 
cerning Gershom  ben  Judah,  see  Gross,  Gallia  juda- 
ica,  Paris,  1897,  pp.  299  et  seq. 

Chap.  II-IV. — Works  in  general.  Besides  the  accounts  of 
Rashi  in  the  works  of  the  historians  of  the  Jewish  people 
and  literature  (especially  Graetz,  Oeschichte  der  Juden, 
Leipsic,  1861,  vol.  vi;  English  translation  published  by  the 
Jewish  Publication  Society  of  America,  Philadelphia,  1895, 
vols.  iii  and  iv;  Hebrew  translation  by  L.  Rabbinovitch, 
Warsaw,  1894,  vol.  iv),  there  are  two  most  important  stud- 
ies of  Rashi: 

1.  Zunz,  Salomon  ben  Isaac,  genannt  Raschi,  in  Zunz's 
Zeitschrift  filr  die  Wissenschaft  des  Judenthums,  1823,  pp. 
277-384.  Additions  by  Zunz  himself  in  the  preface  to  Gottes- 
dienstliche  Vortrdge,  and  in  the  catalogue  of  the  library  at 
Leipsic,  by  Berliner  in  the  Monatsschrift  xi  and  xii,  by 
Klein,  ibid.  xi.  One  appreciates  the  originality  of  this  study 
all  the  more  if  one  reads  in  the  Histoire  litt£raire  de  la 
France,  xvl.,  the  passage  in  which  are  collected  all  the  le- 
gends retailed  concerning  Rashi  in  the  world  of  Christian 
scholars  at  the  time  when  Zunz  wrote. 

Zunz's  essay  was  translated  into  Hebrew  and  enriched 
with  notes  by  Samson  Bloch,  Vita  R.  Salomon  Isaki,  Lem- 
berg  1840,  8°.  Second  edition  by  Hirschenthal,  Warsaw, 
1862.  The  essay  was  abridged  by  Samuel  Cahen  in  the 
Journal  de  I'lnstitut  historique,  I,  and  plagiarized  by 
the  Abbe"  Etienne  Georges,  Le  rabbin  Salomon  Raschi  (sic) 
in  the  Annuaire  administratif  .  .  .  .  du  de~partement  de 
fAube,  1868.  Compare  Clement-Mullet,  Documents  pour 
servir  a  I'histoire  du  rabbin  Salomon  fils  de  Isaac  in  the 
Memoires  de  la  Societe  d' 'Agriculture  .  .  .  .  de  I'Aube,  xix. 

2.  I.  H.  Weiss,  R.  Salomon  bar  Isaac  (in  Hebrew),  in  the 
Bet  Talmud  II,  1881-82,  Nos.  2-10    (cf.  ill.  81).    Off-print 
under  the  title  Biographien  jiidischer  Gelehrten,  2nd  leaflet, 
Vienna,  1882. 

16 


238  EASHI 

Other  works  on  Rashi  are:  M.  H.  Friedlaender,  Raschi, 
in  JiidiscJies  Litteraturblatt,  xvii.  M.  Griinwald,  Raschi's 
Leben  und  Wirken,  ibid.  x. 

Concerning  the  date  of  Rashi's  death,  see  Luzzatto,  in 
the  Orient,  vii.  418. 

Book  II.  Chap.  V. — Concerning  the  laazim  see  A.  Dar- 
mesteter  in  the  Romania  I.  (1882),  and  various  other  essays 
reprinted  in  the  Reliques  scientifiques,  Paris,  1890,  vol.  i. 
The  deciphering  of  the  laazim  by  Berliner  in  his  edition 
of  the  commentary  on  the  Pentateuch  is  defective,  and  that 
of  Landau  in  his  edition  of  the  Talmud  (Prague,  1829;  2d 
ed.,  1839)  is  still  more  inadequate.  A.  Darmesteter's  essay 
on  the  laazim  of  all  the  Biblical  commentaries  will  soon 
appear. 

Chap.  VI. — On  Moses  ha-Darshan  there  is  a  monograph 
by  A.  Epstein,  Vienna  1891;  and  on  Menahem  ben  Helbo 
one  by  S.  Poznanski,  Warsaw,  1904. 

Concerning  the  Biblical  commentaries  see: 

A.  Geiger,  Nite  Naamanim,  Oder  Sammlung  aus  alten 
scMtzbaren  Manuscripten,  Berlin,  1847. 

Parshandata,  die  Nordfranzosische  ExegetenscJiule,  Leip- 
sic,  1855. 

Antoine  Le"vy,  Die  Exegese  bei  den  franzosischen  Juden 
vom  10  bis  14  JaJirhundert  (translated  from  the  French), 
Leipsic,  1873. 

Nehemiah  Kronberg,  Raschi  als  Exeget  .  .  .  ,  Halle 
[1882].  In  Winter  und  Wiinsche,  Die  jiidische  Litteratur, 
ii,  Berlin,  1897,  Die  Bibelexegese,  by  W.  Bacher. 

Chap.  VII. — See  especially  the  above  mentioned  essay  of 
Weiss,  and  by  the  same  author,  Dor  Dor  we-Dorschaw,  Zur 
Geschichte  der  jildischen  Tradition,  Vienna,  iv,  1887. 

Im  Winter  und  Wiinsche  ibid,  ii,  Die  Halacha  in  Italien, 
Frankreich  und  Deutschland,  by  A.  Kaminka. 

Chap.  VIII. — A.  Berliner,  Zur  Charakteristik  Raschi's  in 
Gedenkbuch  zur  Erinnerung  an  D.  Kaufmann  (published 
also  separately),  Breslau,  1900. 

Chap.  IX. — Weiss,  ibid.;  Epstein  in  the  Monatsschrift,  xli. 


BIBLIOGEAPHY  239 

Chap.  X. — Zunz,  Die  Synagogale  Poesie,  Berlin,  1855. 
Clement-Mullet,  Poesies  ou  Selichot  attributes  a  Raschi,  in 
the  Memoir es  de  la  Societe  academique  de  VAube,  xx;  pub- 
lished by  itself,  Troyes,  1856. 

Book  III.  Chaps.  XI-XII.— The  history  of  Rashi's  influ- 
ence forms  part  of  the  general  history  of  later  rabbinical 
literature.  Mention,  therefore,  may  be  made  of  the  follow- 
ing works,  besides  the  history  of  Graetz,  the  works  of  Gei- 
ger  and  of  A.  L6vy,  and  the  references  in  Winter  und 
Wunsche,  II: 

Zunz,  Zur  GeschicJite  und  Literatur. 

Renan  [and  Neubauer],  Les  rabbins  franc.ais  (Histoire 
litteraire  de  la  France),  Paris,  1877. 

L.  Wogue,  Histoire  de  la  Bible  et  de  Vexegese  biblique, 
Paris,  1881. 

I.  H.  Weiss,  Dor  Dor  we-Dors7iaw,  iv  and  v. 

Gross,  Gallia  judaica,  Paris,  1897,  passim. 

Berliner,  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der  Raschi-Commen- 
tare,  Berlin,  1903. 

It  is  impossible  to  enumerate  all  the  monographs  and  all 
the  magazine  articles.  Concerning  Samuel  b.  Mei'r,  see 
Rosin,  R.  Samuel  ben  Meir  als  Scnrifterklarer,  Breslau, 
1880;  concerning  Jacob  Tarn,  see  Weiss,  Rabbenu  Tarn,  In 
the  Bet  Talmud,  ill;  concerning  Jacob  b.  Simson,  see 
Epstein  in  the  Revue  des  Etudes  juives,  XXXT,  pp.  240  et  seq.; 
concerning  Shemaiah,  see  A.  Epstein  in  the  MonatsscJirift, 
xli,  pp.  257,  296,  564;  concerning  Simson  b.  Abraham,  see 
H.  Gross  in  the  Revue  des  Etudes  juives,  vii  and  viii;  con- 
cerning Judah  Sir  Leon,  see  Gross  in  Berliner's  Magazin, 
iv  and  v. 

The  influence  of  Rashi  upon  Nicholas  de  Lyra  and  Luther 
is  the  subject  of  an  essay  by  Siegfried  in  Archiv  fur  wis- 
senschaftliche  Erforschung  des  Alien  Testaments,  i  and  ii. 
For  Nicholas  de  Lyra  alone,  see  Neumann  in  the  Revue  des 
etudes  juives,  xxvi  and  xxvii. 

Concerning  Rashi's  descendants,  see  Epstein,  Mishpahat 
Luria  et  Kohen-ZedeJc  in  Ha-Ooren,  i,  Appendix. 


NOTES 


NOTES 

'See  W.  Bacher,  Raschi  und  Maimuni,  Monatsschrift, 
XLIX,  pp  1  et  seq.  Also  D.  Yellin  and  I.  Abrahams,  Mai- 
monides.  Philadelphia:  The  Jewish  Publication  Society  of 
America,  1903. 

3  A  legend  has  it  that  Vespasian  made  some  Jews  embark 
on  three  vessels,  which  were  then  abandoned  on  the  open 
sea.  One  of  the  ships  reached  Aries,  another  Lyons,  and 
the  third  Bordeaux.  See  Gross,  GaUia  judaica,  p.  74. 

8  See,  for  example,  p.  164. 

•  See  Note  10. 

11  Israel  L6vi. 

"Theodor  Reinach,  La  Grande  Encyclopedic,  s.  v.  Juifs. 

7  However,  there  had  been  Talmudists  in  France  before 
this  period. 

•In  the  first  quarter  of  the  eleventh  century  Burchard, 
bishop  of  Worms,  wrote  the  famous  compilation  which 
became  one  of  the  sources  of  canonical  law.  Concerning 
Lorraine,  its  Jews  and  Talmudical  schools,  see  chap.  II, 
p.  46  et  seq. 

"Not,  as  has  been  said  with  more  ingenuity  than  verity, 
from  Rosh  Shibte  lehudah,  chief  of  the  tribes  of  Judah. 
Others,  transposing  the  letters  of  "Rashi,"  called  him 
Yashar,  "  the  Just."  He  himself  signed  his  name  Solomon 
bar  (not  ben)  Isaac,  or  Berabi  Isaac.  Once  he  wrote  his 
signature  Solomon  of  Troyes. 

10  Since  "  lune,"  moon,  in  Hebrew  "  yerah,"  is  contained 
in  "  Lunel,"  a  number  of  scholars  coming  from  Lunel  bore 
the  surname  "  Yarhi."  The  city,  in  fact,  is  sometimes 
called  "  Jericho,"  as  a  result  of  that  system  of  geographical 
nomenclature  to  which  we  owe  the  name  "  Kiryat  Yearim  " 
for  Nimes  (derived  from  the  Latin  nemus),  and  "Har" 
for  Montpellier,  etc.  Through  an  analogy,  based  not  so 


244  NOTES 

much  upon  the  significance  of  the  words  as  upon  a  sort  of 
assonance,  Spain,  France,  and  Britain  in  rabbinical  litera- 
ture received  the  Hebrew  names  of  Sefarad,  Zarfat,  and 
Rifat.  Likewise  the  city  of  Dreux  is  called  Darom,  and 
so  on. 

11 A  spurious  Rashi  genealogy  from  Johanan  ha-Sandlar 
was  worked  out  in  Italy  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury. In  Appendix  I  is  given  a  table  of  the  connections  and 
immediate  descendants  of  Rashi.  In  chap.  XII,  p.  212 
et  seq.  there  are  references  concerning  some  of  his  later  and 
more  doubtful  descendants. 

"For  this  passage,  see  p.  112. 

13  See  pp.  61-2.    Also  Berliner,  Aus  dem  Leben  der  deut- 
schen  Juden.     The  data  that  follow  are  taken  from  the 
Kolbo,  the  Mahzor  Vitry,  and  other  sources  cited  by  Zunz, 
Zur  Geschichte,  pp.  167  et  seq. 

14  See  p.  81. 

15  See  Epstein,  Die  nach  Raschi  genannten  Gebaude  in 
Worms. 

18  This  is  the  epoch  which  marks  the  arrival  of  Jews  in 
Great  Britain.  They  went  there,  it  seems,  in  the  suite  of 
William  the  Conqueror  (1066).  They  always  remained  in 
touch  with  their  co-religionists  on  the  Continent,  and  were 
sometimes  called  by  these  "  the  Jews  of  the  Island."  For 
a  while  they  enjoyed  great  prosperity,  which,  joined  to  their 
religious  propaganda,  drew  upon  them  the  hatred  of  the 
clergy.  Massacred  in  1190,  exploited  and  utterly  ruined  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  they  were  finally  exiled  in  1290. 

17  See  p.  39. 

18  Surnamed  "  Segan  Leviya,"  supposed — doubtless  incor- 
rectly— to  have  come  originally  from  Vitry  in  Champagne. 
He  was  a  very  conscientious  pupil  of  Eliezer  the  Great. 
Died  about  1070. 

"He  is  the  author  of  the  famous  Aramaic  poem  read  at 
the  Pentecost,  beginning  with  the  words  Akdamot  Millin. 
He  must  not  be  confounded  with  his  contemporary  of  the 
same  name,  Mei'r  ben  Isaac  (of  Orleans?),  to  whom  also 
some  liturgic  poems  are  attributed.  Another  rabbi  of  Or- 


NOTES  245 

leans,  Isaac  ben  Menahem  (according  to  Gross,  Oallia 
judaica,  pp.  32-3,  probably  the  father  of  Me'ir),  was  older 
than  Rashi,  who  quotes  some  of  his  Talmudic  explanations, 
and  some  of  the  notes  written  on  his  copy  of  the  Talmud. 
There  is  nothing  to  prove,  as  Gross  maintains,  that  Rashi 
was  his  pupil.  It  is  not  even  certain  that  he  knew  him 
personally. 

10  See  p.  77  for  Rashi's  relations  to  his  teachers. 

aA  Responsum  signed  by  Rashi  shows  that  he  was  the 
tutor  of  the  children  of  a  certain  Joseph,  whose  father  had 
been  administrator  of  the  community. 

23  For  a  long  time  it  was  thought  and  said  that  once  when 
Rashi  was  sick,  he  dictated  a  Responsum  to  his  daughter. 
As  Zunz  was  the  first  to  show,  this  story  about  Rashi's  sec- 
retary is  based  upon  the  faulty  reading  of  a  text.  Another 
legend  proved  false!  Science  is  remorseless.  See  Refer  ha- 
Parties,  ed.  Constantinople,  33d,  where  one  must  read,  r\a  p^i 
not  *r\3  pSv  See  Zunz,  Zur  Geschichte,  p.  567,  and  Ber- 
liner, HeDrdische  Bibliographic,  XI;  also,  Monatsschrift, 
XXI. 

33  As  has  been  shown  (chap.  II,  p.  51)  Rashi  may  have 
begun  to  write  commentaries  upon  the  Talmud  during  his 
sojourn  in  Lorraine.  However  that  may  be,  it  is  difficult 
to  distinguish  in  this  huge  production  between  the  work  of 
his  youth  and  that  of  his  maturity  or  old  age. 

M  That  is  to  say  "  very  beautiful."  It  is  a  name  frequently 
borne  by  French  Jewesses  in  the  middle  ages.  Some  give 
the  name  of  her  husband  as  Ephraim.  In  chap.  XI,  pp.  187 
et  seq.  the  sons-in-law  and  grandchildren  of  Rashi  will 
receive  further  consideration.  See  also  Appendix  I. 

*  According  to  Jacob  Molin  ha-Levi,  called  Maharil, 
rabbi  of  Mayence,  later  of  Worms,  where  he  died  in  1427. 
Christian  marriages  bore  many  points  of  resemblance  to 
Jewish  marriages.  See  the  work  of  Lecoy  de  la  Marche, 
La  chaire  fransaise  an,  moyen-dge. 

"  See  pp.  165-6. 

"The  economic  influence  of  the  Crusades  has  also  been 
exaggerated.  The  Crusaders  in  Palestine  came  into  rela- 


246  NOTES 

tions  with  scarcely  no  other  Turks  than  those  but  slightly 
civilized,  and  thus  saw  little  of  the  brilliant  Arabic  ciriliza- 
tion.  The  Jews  certainly  contributed  more  than  the  Cru- 
sades to  the  development  of  commerce  and  the  increase  of 
wealth. 

28  According  to  a  less  popular  form  of  the  legend,  Godfrey 
of  Bouillon  disguised  himself  as  a  beggar,  and  obtained 
entrance  into  Rashi's  home  by  asking  for  alms.    But  the 
night  before,  the  visit  of  the  lord  had  been  announced  to 
Rashi  in  a  dream,  and  on  his  approach  Rashi  arose  and 
hailed  him  by  the  title  of  hero.    It  was  in  this  way  that 
Joan  of  Arc  recognized  Charles  VII  lost  in  the  crowd  of 
his  courtiers. 

29  See  chap.  VIII,  pp.  164  et  seq.  for  further  details.    The 
same  chapter  throws  more  light  on  Rashi's  spiritual  nature. 

80  Concerning  this  enigmatical  kinsman  of  Rashi,  see 
chap.  XI,  pp.  186-7. 

31  See  chap.  VI,  p.  125. 

82  The  mistake  arises  from  the  fact  that  certain  cursive 
writing  is  called  "Rashi  script."  It  was  generally  em- 
ployed in  copying  rabbinical  works,  among  others,  the 
works  of  Rashi.  The  term  indicates  the  wide  popularity 
enjoyed  by  the  works  of  Rashi. 

38  See  p.  45. 

84  See  chap.  VI,  p.  105. 

35  The  Megillat  Taanit  is  a  collection  of  ephemerides  or 
calendars,  indicating  the  days  on  which  happy  events  oc- 
curred, and  on  which  it  is  forbidden  to  fast.  The  little 
work,  written  in  Aramaic,  but  enlarged  by  Hebrew  glosses, 
is  attributed  by  the  Talmud  to  Hananiah  ben  Hezekiah  ben 
Garon,  or  Gorion  (first  century) ;  the  nucleus  about  which 
the  book  was  built  up  seems  to  go  back  as  far  as  Maccabean 
times. 

88  See  Note  94. 

87  Collection  of  texts  not  incorporated  in  the  Mishnah, 
the  order  of  which  is  followed,  now  to  explain  it,  now  to 
complement  it,  and  sometimes  to  contradict  it.  The  re- 
daction of  the  Tosefta  is  attributed  to  R.  Hiyyah  bar  Abba 
(third  century). 


NOTES  247 

*"  When  the  aim  of  the  Midrash  is  to  interpret  the  legal 
and  ritual  portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  called  Halakic; 
it  is  Haggadic  when  its  aim  is  to  interpret  the  narrative 
and  moral  portions  (see  chap.  VI,  p.  107).  The  Halakic 
Midrashim  nevertheless  contain  much  Haggadah.  The 
redaction  of  the  Mekilta,  the  commentary  on  Exodus,  is 
attributed  to  R.  Ishmael;  that  of  the  Sifra,  or  Torat  Koha- 
nim,  the  commentary  on  Leviticus,  to  R.  Judan  ben  IlaT; 
that  of  the  Sifre,  the  commentary  on  Numbers  and  Deuter- 
onomy, to  R.  Simon  ben  Yohai  and  to  the  school  of  Rab, 
all  scholars  of  the  second  and  third  centuries.  The  Sifra 
that  Rashi  employed  was  more  complete  than  the  one  now 
available,  and  he  cites  a  second  Sifre,  at  present  unknown. 

""The  Midrash  Rabba,  or  Rabbot,  consists  of  Haggadic 
compilations  on  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Five  Rolls;  the  ele- 
ments of  this  Midrash  are  comparatively  ancient',  but  its 
definite  redaction  without  doubt  does  not  go  farther  back 
than  the  eighth  century.  Rashi  did  not  know  those  por- 
tions of  the  Midrash  Rabba  which  explain  the  Books  of 
Exodus  and  Numbers. 

40  By  this  name  are  designated  Haggadic  collections  for 
various  distinguished  times  and  seasons  of  the  year.  There 
are  two  Pesiktas,  the  Pesikta  attributed  to  R.  Kahana,  a 
Babylonian  Talmudist,  though  its  redaction  falls  in  the 
seventh  century,  and  the  Pesikta  Rabbati,  or  Great  Pesikta, 
doubtless  compiled  in  Southern  Italy  in  the  ninth  century. 
Rashi  knew  the  first  of  these  collections;  and  his  citations 
aided  Zunz  in  the  reconstruction  he  made  of  this  Midrash 
before  the  discovery  of  a  manuscript  by  Buber  confirmed 
his  clear-sighted  suppositions. 

*lName  of  a  Midrash  on  the  Pentateuch,  redacted  by 
the  pupils  of  R.  Tanhuma.  Quite  recently  the  endeavor 
was  made  to  prove  that  Rashi  did  not  know  the  Tanhuma 
either  in  the  current  text  or  in  the  more  extended  text 
published  by  Buber  in  1885,  and  that  he  called  Tanhuma 
the  Midrash  Yelamdenu,  which  is  lost,  and  which  is  said  to 
be  the  prototype  of  the  two  versions  of  the  Tanhuma.  See 
Grunhut,  in  Festschrift  Berliner,  pp.  156-63. 


248  NOTES 

42  A  Midrashic  compilation,  partly  mystic  in  character, 
of  the  eighth  century,  but  attributed  to  the  Tanna  R.  Eliezer 
ben  Hyrkanos  the  Great. 

43  Collection  in  three  "  gates,"  relating  to  history,  especi- 
ally  to    Biblical    chronology.     Its    redaction    is    commonly 
attributed  to  R.  Jose"  ben  Halafta  (second  century). 

"Sherira  bar  Hananiah,  Gaon  of  Pumbedita,  about  930- 
1000,  a  scholar  of  great  activity,  who  left  Responsa.  The 
one  bearing  upon  the  chronology  of  the  Talmudic  and 
Gaonic  periods  is  the  chief  source  for  the  history  of  those 
times. 

"Ha'i  Gaon,  born  about  940,  collaborator,  then  successor, 
of  his  father.  He  wrote  much,  and  his  reputation  reached 
Europe.  Philosopher,  scholar,  didactic  poet,  and  commen- 
tator of  the  Bible,  he  left  authoritative  Responsa,  Talmudic 
commentaries,  collections  of  rabbinical  jurisprudence,  and 
a  Hebrew  dictionary,  which  has  been  lost. 

44  Aha  or  Aha'i  of  Shabha  wrote,  about  760,  one  hundred 
and    ninety-one    Sheeltot    (Questions),    casuistic   homilies, 
connected  with  the  Five  Books  of  Moses. 

"Yehudai  bar  Nahman,  Gaon  of  Sura  (about  759  or 
762),  eminent  Talmudist  and  adversary  of  the  Karaites. 
He  wrote  Responsa  and  possibly  the  Halakot,  a  collection 
of  legal  and  ritual  rules.  He  is  said  to  have  been  blind. 

48  Isaac  Abrabanel  was  possibly  the  only  Jew  who  un- 
masked Josephus  and  revealed  his  lies  and  flatteries.  Ju- 
dah  Sir  Leon  (see  chap.  XI,  p.  194)  recognized  that  Kalir 
was  not  identical  with  the  Tanna  Eleazar  ben  Simon. 

*  Of  Tahort,  Northern  Africa.  He  lived  at  the  end  of  the 
ninth  century  and  the  beginning  of  the  tenth. 

50  See  chap.  VI,  p.  127  and  Note  91. 

"Exception  can  scarcely  be  made  in  favor  of  the  pream- 
ble to  the  Song  of  Songs  and  the  shorter  one  to  Zechariah. 
In  the  one  he  briefly  characterizes  the  Haggadic  method; 
in  the  other  he  speaks  of  the  visions  of  Zechariah,  which, 
he  says,  are  as  obscure  as  dreams. 

"At  the  end  of  the  gloss  the  explanations  of  Menahem 
ben  Saruk  and  Dunash  ben  Labrat  are  reproduced.  This  is 


NOTES  249 

without  -doubt  a  later  addition.  For  these  two  Spanish 
grammarians,  see  Note  91. 

83  Evidently  it  was  not  Rashi  who  commented  on  the  work 
of  Alfasi,  his  contemporary.  It  was  a  German  Jew,  who 
abridged  the  commentary  of  the  French  rabbi  in  order  to 
make  it  harmonize  with  the  work  of  the  illustrious  Spanish 
Talmudist.  For  several  treatises  the  German  Jew  had 
more  authentic  texts  than  are  now  available.  He  some- 
times cites  Rashi  by  name.  See  J.  Perles,  Die  Berner  Hand- 
schrift  des  kleinen  Aruch,  in  Jubelschrift  Qraetz,  1887. 

M  See  Note  53. 

55  The  Gallo-Roman  dialects  are  divided  into  two  groups, 
the  dialects  of  the  langue  d'oc  (southern)  and  those  of  the 
langue  d'oi'l  (northern).  It  was  Dante  who  introduced 
this  somewhat  irrational  distinction  based  upon  the  differ- 
ent ways  of  saying  "yes,"  that  is,  oc  and  o'il  (Latin,  hoc 
and  ille). 

58  In  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century,  it  must  be  added, 
differences  between  neighboring  dialects  were  not  yet  very 
pronounced. 

87  James  Darmesteter,  Introduction  to  the  Reliques  scien- 
tifiques,  of  his  brother  Arsene  Darmesteter   (Paris,  1890), 
vol.  I,  p.  XVIII. 

MEliezer  ben  Nathan,  of  Mayence  (about  1145),  corres- 
pondent of  Mei'r  and  of  his  sons  Samuel  and  Jacob,  author 
of  the  work  Eben  ha-Ezer,  whence  the  passage  quoted  has 
been  taken  (§  107,  p.  36o). 

59  The  Persian  word  Parshandata,  name  of  one  of  the  sons 
of  Haman,  was  divided  into  Parshan  and  data,  "  expounder 
of  the  Law."    This  epithet  is  applied  to  Rashi  in  the  poem 
attributed  to  Ibn  Ezra,  cited  in  chap.  XI,  p.  207. 

80  Rashi  seems  also  to  have  known  about  the  Targum  of 
the  Pseudo-Jonathan  upon  the  Pentateuch.    See  Note  72. 

81  Concerning  the  development  of  Biblical  studies  in  gen- 
eral, among  Jews  as  well  as  Christians,  see  pp.  127  et  seq. 

«*  L.  Wogue,  Histoire  de  la  Bible  et  de  Texegese  biblique, 
p.  250. 

88  See  p.  38.    This  Midrash  is  taken  from  the  Tanhuma. 


250  NOTES 

84  Psalms  cxi.  6.  Rashi  cites  the  Biblical  verses  them- 
selves, often  only  in  part;  but  he  did  not  know  the  division 
of  the  Bible  into  chapters  and  verses,  which  was  made  at 
a  later  day  and  was  of  Christian  origin.  Sometimes  Rashi 
cites  a  verse  by  indicating  the  weekly  lesson  in  which  it 
occurs,  or  by  giving  the  paragraph  a  title  drawn  from  its 
contents,  or  from  the  name  of  the  hero  of  the  narrative. 

"Proverbs  viii.  22. 

68  Jeremiah  ii.  3. 

"The  rule,  however,  has  exceptions.  Even  according  to 
Rashi's  opinion,  the  word  is  in  the  absolute  in  Deut.  xxxiii. 
21  and  Is.  xlvi.  10.  It  is  true  that  strictly  speaking  one 
might  say  the  exceptions  are  only  apparent. 

88 "  We  will  praise  and  we  will  celebrate." 

69  For  the  meaning  of  this  expression,  see  p.  107.     The 
source  here  is  still  the  Talmudic  treatise  Sanhedrin  91&. 

70  Rashi  here  cites  Is.  xiv.  25,  inaccurately. 

71  Here  Rashi  might  have  cited  also  I  Kings  xii.  17. 

n  This  interpretation,  taken  without  doubt  from  Pseudo- 
Jonathan  (see  Note  60),  explains  the  demonstrative  pro- 
noun. What  follows  is  taken  from  the  Mekilta  (see  Note 
38). 

78  In  fact  the  Targum  translates  it,  "  I  will  build  Him  a 
temple." 

74  Still  according  to  the  Mekilta.     The  Song  of  Songs  is 
often  applied  by  Jewish  exegetes  to  the  events  of  the  Exo- 
dus from  Egypt. 

75  The  French  laaz  is  corrupted  in  the  editions.    The  read- 
ing should  be  t3"Jty  H3. 

78  Name  of  the  last  portion  of  Exodus.  Rashi  alludes  to 
Ex.  xxxviii.  27. 

"Without  doubt  the  murex,  which  gives  the  purple  dye. 
The  details  are  taken  from  the  Talmud  (treatise  Menahot 
44a  at  the  top). 

78  A  fantastic  bit  of  etymology  taken  from  the  Talmud. 

78  Ex.  xxvii.  20. 

80  Next  to  last  portion  of  Exodus  (xxx.  22  et  seq.). 

81  Portion  preceding  next  to  last  of  Exodus. 


NOTES  251 

MEx.  xxYiii.  6. 

83  76.  and  15.    The  first  of  these  passages  is  noteworthy, 
Rashi  says  about  it:  "  If  I  tried  to  explain  how  these  two 
objects  are  made  according  to  the  text,  the  explanation 
would  be  fragmentary,  and  the  reader  would  not  get  an 
idea  of  the  whole.    So  I  will  first  give  a  complete  descrip- 
tion of  them,  to  which  the  reader  can  refer.    After  that 
I  will  explain  the  text  verse  by  verse.    The  ephod  resem- 
bles the  robe  worn  by  the  Amazons,"  etc. 

84  L.  Wogue. 

85  This  is  a  distinction  made  in  Hebrew  but  not  rendered 
in  the  English  version. 

86 1  Sam.  xxiii.  14. 

87  And  not  "  shadow  of  death,"  which  is  etymologically 
impossible,  though  it  is  a  rendition  employed  by  most  com- 
mentators. 

88  See  Note  91. 

89  Collection  of  Midrashim  long  attributed  to  Simon  Kara, 
father  of  a  disciple  of  Rashi.    This  valuable  compilation, 
which  deals  with  the  entire  Bible,  dates  without  doubt  from 
the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth  century.     An  unsuccessful 
attempt  has   been  made  to   prove   that  Rashi  knew  the 
Yalkut.    His  silence  shows,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  was  a 
later   work.     The   Simon    (sometimes   Simson)    whom  he 
quotes  is  not  the  author  of  the  Talkut. 

90  Commentary  on  Gen.  xxxvii.  1. 

91  Menahem  ben  Saruk,  of  Tortosa,  lived  at  Cordova  about 
960  with  the  celebrated  minister  and  Maecenas,  the  Jew 
Hasdai'  Ibn  Shaprut.    He  was  the  author  of  the  Mahberet, 
o*ne  of  the  first  complete  lexicons  of  the  Biblical  language, 
full  of  interesting  grammatical  digressions. 

His  rival,  Dunash  ben  Labrat,  born  at  Fez,  was  both  poet 
and  grammarian.  He  wrote  "  Refutations  "  against  Mena- 
hem, in  rhyme  and  prose,  which  were  full  of  impassioned 
criticisms  and  abundantly  displayed  fresh,  correct  insight. 
The  polemics  of  these  two  scholars  were  continued  by  their 
disciples  and  were  ended  by  Jacob  Tarn,  Rashi's  grandson. 

83  Abul-Walid  Merwan  ibn  Djanah  (among  the  Jews,  R. 


252  NOTES 

Jonah),  the  most  eminent  representative  of  the  Spanish 
school,  born  at  Cordova  about  985;  he  studied  at  Lucena, 
and  died  at  Saragossa  about  1050.  Besides  small  polemic 
works,  he  left  a  long  one,  "The  Book  of  Detailed  Re- 
search," including  a  grammar  and  a  dictionary.  Ibn 
Djanah  was  an  original  and  profound  grammarian.  Unfor- 
tunately his  disciples  in  popularizing  weakened  him. 

Judah  ben  David  (Abu  Zakaria  Yahia  ibn  Daud)  Hay- 
youdj,  who  may  be  looked  upon  as  the  master  of  Djanah, 
was  originally  from  Fez  but  lived  for  the  greater  time  at 
Cordova  (end  of  the  tenth  and  beginning  of  the  eleventh 
century).  He  inspired  remarkable  disciples,  among  others 
the  statesman  Samuel  ha-Naggid  Ibn  Nagdela.  He  was  the 
first  to  discover  the  triliteral  character  of  all  Hebrew  roots. 

83  Abraham  bea  Meir  Ibn  Ezra  (1092-1167),  born  at  Toledo, 
died  at  Rome.  He  left  Spain  in  about  his  fortieth  year, 
and  travelled  through  Europe,  reaching  also  Asia  and 
Africa.  The  European  countries  he  visited  are  Italy, 
France,  England,  and  the  Provence.  It  was  on  his  second 
visit  to  Italy  that  he  died  at  Rome.  He  wrote  for  his  liv- 
ing and  by  way  of  compensation  to  his  hosts.  He  was  a 
philosopher,  excellent  mathematician,  clever  poet,  and 
highly  subjective  writer.  In  the  domain  of  philology  he 
brought  to  the  knowledge  of  Christian  Europe  the  works 
of  his  great  predecessors,  and  if  he  was  not  a  very  original 
grammarian,  he  was  at  least  a  clear-sighted  exegete.  His 
Biblical  commentaries  are  held  in  high  esteem. 

Concerning  Rashi  and  Ibn  Ezra  see  also  chap.  XI,  pp. 
206-7,  and  chap.  XII,  p.  220. 

M  At  this  point  I  think  it  well  to  give  once  for  all  a  sum- 
ming up  of  Talmudic  literature.  The  Talmud  is  the  united 
mass  of  the  documents  and  texts  of  the  oral  law.  It  com- 
prises the  Mishnah  and  the  Gemara,  the  latter  being  called 
also  Talmud.  The  Mishnah,  a  collection  in  six  parts  and 
forty-nine  treatises,  is  the  work  of  numerous  generations 
of  scholars.  Its  final  redaction  (setting  aside  somewhat 
later  additions)  was  made  by  Judah  the  Saint,  or  Rabbi 
(about  150-210).  The  texts  not  incorporated  by  Rabbi  are 


NOTES  253 

called  Baraitas.  The  Gemara  is  the  commentary  and  the 
development  of  the  Mishnah,  which  it  follows  step  by  step, 
in  discussing  it  and  completing  its  statements.  There 
are  two  Gemara  collections:  one  elaborated  in  Palestine 
under  the  influence  of  R.  Johanan  (199-279)  and  termin- 
ated toward  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  which  is  called 
the  Palestinian  or  Jerusalem  Talmud;  the  other  drawn  up  in 
Babylonia  under  the  influence  of  Rah  and  of  Samuel  (third 
century),  and  brought  to  a  conclusion  about  500  through 
the  initiative  of  R.  Ashi  and  his  disciples;  this  is  called  the 
Babylonian  Talmud.  The  latter  covers  the  greater  part  of 
the  Mishnah.  It  is  by  far  the  more  important  of  the  two 
Talmuds  from  the  juridic  point  of  view,  and  it  is  the  one 
that  has  been  the  chief  subject  of  studies  and  commentaries. 
The  Talmud  comprises  two  elements:  the  Halakah,  "rule 
of  conduct,"  legislation,  and  the  Haggadah,  "exposition," 
which  embraces  non-Halakic  exegesis,  history,  legend, 
profane  learning,  etc.  The  scholars  whose  discussions  are 
given  in  the  Mishnah  are  called  Tannaim,  and  those  who 
figure  only  in  the  Gemara,  Amoraim. 

95  See  Appendix  II,  pp.  232-4. 

"  See  p.  91. 

"Hananel  ben  Hushiel,  of  Kairuan,  first  half  of  the 
eleventh  century,  commented  upon  the  Talmud  and  the 
Pentateuch. 

*  This  false  notion  gained  currency  through  the  existence 
of  Responsa  addressed  by  Nathan  to  a  certain  Solomon 
,ben  Isaac:  but  this  Solomon  is  an  Italian.  See  Vogelstein 
and  Rieger,  GeschicMe  der  Juden  in  Rom,  I,  pp.  366  et  seq. 
For  further  information  concerning  Nathan  ben  Jehiel,  see 
Note  121.  With  regard  to  recurring  names  for  different 
individuals — the  plague  of  Jewish  literature — it  should  be 
said  that  a  French  rabbi  named  Solomon  ben  Isaac  lived 
about  a  century  after  Rashi,  who  corresponded  with  R. 
Tarn.  He  has  been  confounded  with  his  illustrious  pre- 
decessor of  the  same  name.  See  Gross,  Oallia  judaica,  p. 
34.  Buber,  Introduction  to  the  Sefer  Tie-Graft,  p.  13. 

w  See  Notes  37  and  38. 

17 


254  NOTES 

100  Another   name  for  the   Sadduceans,   from  their  chief 
Boethus  (first  century  of  the  Common  Era). 

101  Psalm  Ixxxi.  5,  which  refers  to  the  new  moon.    Now, 
in  every  case  at  least  two  witnesses  are  necessary. 

108  Lev.  xxiii.  40. 

108  Ex.  xv.  2. 

104 "And  shalt  hum  with  fire  the  city"  (Deut.  xiii.  16). 

105  Sukkah  326.  These  references  placed  in  parentheses  in 
Rashi's  commentary  are  the  work  of  the  printers,  who 
adopted  the  conventional  division  into  folios.  Rashi  refers 
only  to  the  treatise  or  chapter,  at  most  simply  saying 
"  above,"  or  "  below." 

10*  It  is  the  Latin  "  scopae." 

mMal.  i.  13. 

«*Lev.  i.  2. 

109  Is.  Ixi.  8. 

110  A  city  of  Judea,  called  also  Tower  of  Simon. 
m  Fifth  chapter  of  Hullin,79a. 

111  The  French  toile,  curtain. 

us  Concerning  Hananel,  see  Note  97.  R.  Isaac  b.  Jacob  al- 
Fasi  (the  initials  form  Rif)  was  born  in  1013  near  Fez, 
whence  his  name.  In  1088  he  went  to  Spain,  where  he 
directed  the  important  school  of  Lucena.  He  died  in  1103, 
lamented  by  all  his  fellow-citizens.  Besides  Responsa, 
he  left  the  "  Halakot,"  or  "  Little  Talmud,"  which  is  a 
pruning  down  of  the  entire  Talmud,  so  as  to  present  only 
what  is  useful  for  establishing  the  norm,  deduced  by  Alfasi 
himself.  It  is  an  important  work,  which  still  enjoys  great 
authority.  I  have  already  remarked  (Note  53)  that  the 
Rashi  commentary  was  abridged  to  make  it  fit  the  text  of 
Rif. 

114  In  these  words  Rashi  displaces  another  lesson. 

116  Parasang  is  a  Persian  measure  equivalent  to  6250 
metres,  a  fact  of  which  Rashi  seems  to  have  been  ignorant. 

116  According  to  Hagigah  13a. 

UT  In  the  first  case  it  refers  to  Ahriman,  the  spirit  of  evil, 
in  the  second,  to  Ormuzd,  the  spirit  of  good  among  the  Per- 
sians. Lillit  in  Oriental  mythology  is  a  female  demon, 
who  wanders  at  night  and  attacks  chiefly  children. 


NOTES  255 

118  Isaac  ben  Judah,  his  master  par  excellence.  Concern- 
ing Rashi's  teachers  see  chap.  I,  p.  29;  chap.  II,  pp.  49  et 
seq.;  chap.  Ill,  p.  58,  etc. 

118  Dan.  iii.  1. 

110  David  Ibn  Abi  Zimra  (Radbaz),  rabbi  of  Cairo,  who 
died,  it  is  said,  at  Safed  in  1589  at  the  age  of  110  years.  He 
left  an  important  collection  of  Responsa. 

131  Nathan  ben  Jehiel,  of  Rome,  born  about  1035,  died  in 
the  first  years  of  the  twelfth  century,  author  of  the  Aruk, 
a  highly  valued  Talmudic  dictionary,  in  which  he  explains 
the  words  of  Talmudic  and  Midrashic  literature,  as  well  as 
the  Halakic  and  Haggadic  passages  presenting  difficulties. 
The  numerous  quotations  are  no  less  valuable  than  the 
explanations.  Concerning  Alfasi,  see  Note  113. 

m  Quoted  from  Bezalel  Ashkenazi,  who  lived  in  Egypt 
(died  in  1530).  He  compiled  a  Talmudic  collection  called 
Shitta  MeTcubezet,  in  which  he  gathered  together  extracts 
from  French,  Spanish,  and  other  rabbis.  Before  him  Isaac 
ben  Sheshet  (see  Note  150)  had  said:  "The  greatest  light 
that  has  come  to  us  from  France  is  Rashi.  Without  his 
commentary,  the  Talmud  would  be  a  closed  book"  (Re- 
sponsa, No.  394). 

""Menahem  ben  Zerah  (about  1312-1385),  son  of  a  Jew 
expelled  from  France,  wrote  in  Spain  a  Talmudic  manual 
entitled  Zedah  la-Derek. 

at  Concerning  Rashi's  correspondents  see  chap.  II,  pp. 
51-2,  and  chap.  Ill,  p.  57. 

1X1  See  chap.  I,  p.  20,  and  chap.  Ill,  p.  56. 

™  See  chap.  Ill,  p.  67. 

"'And  not,  as  has  been  supposed,  that  of  Cavaillon,  in 
the  county  Venaissin,  where,  possibly,  there  were  not  yet 
any  Jews,  and  where,  at  all  events,  Rashi  was  not  known, 
as  was  the  case  throughout  the  south  of  France,  until  after 
his  death. 

148  An  application,  according, to  the  Talmud,  of  Eccl.  ii. 

14. 
129  This  resum6  is  taken  from  Epstein  on  Shemaiah,  In 


256  NOTES 

Monatsschrift,  XL.I,  also  that  of  Sefer  Tia-OraTi.  Concern- 
ing the  Machirites,  see  chap.  I,  p.  29,  and  chap.  II,  p.  52; 
concerning  Shemaiah,  chap.  XI,  pp.  186-7.  The  three  com- 
munities are  sometimes  called  by  the  initials  of  their  names, 
"  communities  of  Shum  "  (Q"vt»>) 

In  connection  with  the  Sefer  na-Pardes  must  be  men- 
tioned the  work  bearing  the  title  of  LiJckute  na-Pardes 
(Extracts  from  Paradise),  a  compilation  edited  in  Italy 
by  the  disciples  of  Isaiah  da  Trani. 

™  See  chap.  IV,  p.  84. 

mL.  Wogue,  Histoire  de  la  Bible  et  de  VexGgese  "biblique, 
pp.  254-5. 

1W  See  chap.  IX,  pp.  171-2. 

138  See  p.  162. 

1MRameru,  or  Ramerupt,  situated  six  miles  from  Troyes 
on  a  tributary  of  the  Aube.  Of  old  it  formed  an  entire 
county,  proof  of  which  is  furnished  by  the  ditches  surround- 
ing it  and  the  ruins  of  a  castellated  stronghold.  At  the 
present  day  it  is  the  chief  city  of  the  Departement  de 
1'Aube. 

188  The  sort  of  literature  designated  by  this  word  will  be 
defined  later  on,  pp.  191-2. 

138  Chap.  VI,  p.  125. 

137  Concerning  the  Biblical  exegesis  of  Samuel  ben  Meir 
see  pp.  196-7. 

188  See  Note  91. 

119 It  has  been  said  that  "Tossafot"  signifies  "supple- 
ments to  Rashi;"  this  is  not  true,  but  it  is  noteworthy  that 
the  expression  is  open  to  such  a  misconstruction. 

140  Dampierre  on  the  Aube,  at  present  part  of  the  canton 
of  Rameru,  counted,  after  the  twelfth  century,  among  the 
most  important  lordships  in  the  region. 

141  The  name  "  Morel,"  customary  among  English  Jews, 
corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  name  "  Samuel." 

ia  See  pp.  202-3. 

148  The  numeric  value  of  the  letters  composing  the  word 
Oan  in  Hebrew  is  53,  the  number  of  Pentateuch  lessons  in 
the  annual  cycle. 


NOTES  257 

144  See  chap.  VII,  pp.  157-8. 

**  Concerning  Rashi  and  Ibn  Ezra,  see  chap.  VI,  p.  131. 

148  David  Kimhi  (1160-1235),  of  Narbonne,  a  philosopher, 
a  follower  of  Maimonides,  a  grammarian,  and  an  exegete, 
who  popularized  the  works  of  the  Spaniards  by  his  Biblical 
commentaries,  his  grammar,  and  his  dictionary.    He  en- 
joyed and  still  enjoys  a  deserved  reputation  for  clearness 
and  simplicity. 

147  Moses  ben  Nahman,  also  called  Bonastruc  da  Porta, 
born  at  Gerona  in  1195,  was  a  Talmudist,  Kabbalist,  philoso- 
pher, and  physician.  In  1263  he  carried  on  a  disputation 
at  Barcelona  with  the  apostate  Pablo  Christiano.  On  this 
account  he  went  to  live  in  Palestine,  where  he  died  in  1270. 
His  was  one  of  the  most  original  personalities  in  Spanish 
Judaism. 

143  Solomon  ben  Abraham  ben  Adret  (1235-1310),  born  at 
Barcelona,  rabbi  and  head  of  an  influential  school  there. 
The  extent  of  his  knowledge  as  well  as  his  moderation  won 
for  him  a  wide  reputation,  proof  of  which  is  afforded  by 
his  intervention  as  arbiter  in  the  quarrel  between  the  par- 
tisans and  the  adversaries  of  Maimonides,  and  by  his  nu- 
merous Responsa,  of  which  about  three  thousand  have  been 
published.  Besides,  he  wrote  Talmudic  commentaries  and 
casuistic  collections. 

149  Asher  ben  Jehiel,  disciple  of  Meir  of  Rothenburg,  born 
about  1250,  died  in  1327  at  Toledo,  where  he  was  rabbi. 
Besides  numerous  and  important  Responsa  he  wrote  Tal- 
mudic commentaries   and  a  compendium  of  the  Talmud 
bearing  his  name. 

100  His  initials  read  Ribash  (1336-1408).  He  exercised 
rabbinical  functions  in  several  cities  of  Spain.  After 
the  persecutions  of  1391,  he  went  to  Algiers,  where  he  was 
appointed  rabbi.  He  was  well-informed  in  philosophy, 
but  he  owes  his  great  reputation  chiefly  to  his  Talmudic 
knowledge,  as  is  proved  by  his  numerous  Responsa. 

15lRashbaz,  born  in  1361  on  Majorca,  of  a  family  origin- 
ally from  the  Provence.  At  first  he  practiced  medicine,  but, 
reduced  to  poverty  byjie  persecutions  of  1391,  he  resigned 


258  NOTES 

himself,  not  without  scruples,  to  accepting  the  emoluments 
of  a  rabbi.  He  died  in  1444  at  Algiers,  where  he  had  been 
the  co-worker,  then  the  successor,  of  Ribash.  He  is  known 
chiefly  for  his  commentaries  and  his  Responsa.  The  passage 
in  question  is  taken  from  these  Responsa,  No.  394.  See  also 
Note  122. 

153  See  chap.  II,  p.  31,  and  chap.  IV,  p.  80. 

153  See  chap.  II,  pp.  31-2. 

154  The  daughter  of  Solomon  Luria  married  a  brother  of 
the   famous   Talmudist  of   Cracow,  Moses   Isserles    (1530- 
1572).    I  will  add  that  the  families  of  Treves,  Pollak,  Hel- 
ler, and  Katzenellenbogen  also  maintain  that  they  are  con- 
nected with  Rashi.     On  the  descendants  of  Rashi,  see  Ep- 
stein,  Mishpahat  Lurie  we-KoJien-Zedek,   in  Ha-Goren,    I, 
Appendix. 

188  See  chap.  II,  p.  37. 

166  This  defective  edition  was  replaced  by  a  good  critical 
edition  by  David  Rosin  (Breslau,  1881). 

16T  L.  Wogue,  Histoire  de  la  Bible  et  de  Vextg&se  biblique, 
p.  319. 

158  Abraham  Geiger,  born  in  1810  at  Frankfort,  died  at 
Berlin  in  1874,  one  of  the  finest  Jewish  scholars  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  His  prolific  activity  was  exerted  in  all 
provinces  of  Jewish  history  and  literature.  Besides  works 
upon  the  Talmud,  the  poets,  the  philosophers,  and  the 
exegetes  of  the  middle  ages,  he  wrote  numerous  articles  in 
two  journals,  which  he  successively  edited.  Theologian 
and  distinguished  preacher,  he  promoted  the  reform  of  the 
Jewish  cult  in  Germany. 

""Wolf  Heidenheim  (1757-1832),  Talmudist,  Hebrew 
scholar,  and  editor.  He  deserves  the  sobriquet  of  the  Henri 
Estienne  of  Hebrew  letters.  The  commentary  in  which  he 
defends  Rashi  is  entitled  Habanat  ha-Mikra.  Only  the  be- 
ginning, up  to  Gen.  xliii.  16,  has  appeared. 

"•Isaac  Hirsch  Weiss  (1815-1905),  professor  at  the  Bet 
ha-Midrash  of  Vienna,  wrote  many  studies  scattered  through 
two  literary  magazines  edited  by  him  successively,  and  also 
an  important  History  of  Jewish  Tradition,  in  five  volumes. 


NOTES  259 

161  Solomon  Judah  Rapoport,  born  in  1790,  died  rabbi  of 
Prague  in  1867.    Together  with  Zunz,  he  was  the  founder 
of  modern  Jewish  science.    A  distinguished  man  of  letters, 
he  was  known  above  all  for  his  biographies  of  celebrated 
rabbis,  for  historic  and  archaeologic  studies,  and  for  an  un- 
finished encyclopedia. 

162  Zechariah  Frankel,  born  at  Prague  in  1801,  after  1854 
director  of  the  Seminary  at  Breslau,  where  he  died  in  1875. 
He  left  historic  studies  on  the  Mosaic-Talmudic  law,  intro- 
ductions to  the  Septuagint,  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  and  the 
Mishnah,  and  numerous  critical  and  historical  works  In 
the  Programs  of  the  Seminary  and  in  the  Monatssclirift,  a 
magazine  edited  by  him  from  1851  on. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Aaron  ben  Joseph,  Biblical  commen- 
tary by,  199. 

Aaron  the  Elder,  correspondent  of 
Rashi,  57. 

Abelard,  scholar,  alluded  to,  54. 

Abodah  Zarah,  laazim  bearing  on, 
99. 

Abrabanel.     See  Isaac  Abrabanel. 

Abraham  ben  Garton,  printer  of 
Rashi's  commentary,  214. 

Abraham'  ben  Jehiel,  fellow-student 
of  Rashi,  52. 

Abraham  ben  Melr,  fellow-student  of 
Rashi,  52 

Abraham  ben  Nathan,  Tossafist,  194. 

Abraham  Ibn  Ezra,  contrasted  with 
Rashi,  76,  79,  131-2;  alluded  to, 
91;  obscurity  of,  95;  correspond- 
ent of  Jacob  Tarn,  190;  com- 
bats Rashi,  206-7;  poem  by,  on 
Rashi,  206-7;  Luzzatto  on,  220; 
data  about,  252,  n.  93. 

Abraham  the  Just,  Rashi's  com- 
panion in  Paradise,  71. 

Absalom,  subject  of  Psalm  IX,  96. 

Africa,  Northern,  the  scholars  of, 
make  use  of  Responsa,  160. 

Agriculture,  pursued  by  Jews,  20.    • 

Aha,  Gaon,  cited  by  Rashi,  83,  248, 
n.  46. 

Akdamot  Millin,  poem,  author  of, 
244,  n.  19. 

Alexius,  Saint,  life  of,  alluded  to, 
102. 

Alfasi.    See  Isaac  Alfasi. 

Amalek,  subject  of  Psalm  IX,  96. 

Amoraim  the,  the  generations  of, 
distinguished  by  Rashi,  150; 
term  explained,  253,  n.  94. 

"  Amphitryon,  The."  See  Ha-Par- 
nea. 

Apocrypha,  the,  not  known  to  Rashi, 
83. 

Arabic,  Rashi  supposed  to  have 
known,  80,  82. 

Arabs,  the,  and  the  sciences,  81-2; 
stimulate  grammatical  studies, 
127. 

Aramaic,  handled  easily  by  Rashi, 
97;  used  by  Rashi,  129. 

Aristotle,  alluded  to,  76,  93. 

Aries,  alluded  to,  243,  n.  2. 

Ashi,  redactor  of  the  Talmud,  253, 
n.  94. 

Asher  ben  Jehiel  (Asheri,  Rosh),  on 
Samson  of  Sens,  193;  influenced 
by  Rashi,  209;  data  about,  257, 
n.  149. 


Asher  ha-Levi,  martyr,  66. 
Asheri.    Bee  Asher  ben  Jehiel. 
Asia,  the  Jews  of,  influenced  by  the 

Babylonian  Exile,  108. 
Astronomy,  supposed  to  be  known  by 

Rashi,  80,  82. 
Atonement,  eve  of  the  Day  of,  poem 

for,  176-8. 
Austrasia,  early  settlement  of  Jews 

in,   18. 
Autobiographies,  Jewish,  paucity  of, 

n. 

Auto-da- ft,  at  Blois,  189;  under  St. 
Louis,  217. 

Auxerre,  the  "  wise  men  "  of,  corre- 
spondents of  Rashi,  57,  128. 

Azriel  ben  Nathan,  fellow-student  of 
Rashi,  52. 

Azulal,  bibliographer,  on  Rashi,  95. 

Baba    Batra,   Talmudical    treatise, 

commentary  on,  97. 
Baba  Batra  73a,  as  interpreted  by 

Rashi,  153-5. 
Babylon,  the  scholars  of,  make  use 

of  Responsa,  160. 

Babylonian   academic*,    the,   the  de- 
cline of,  28. 
Babylonian  Exile,  the,  the  influence 

of,  108. 
Babylonian   influences   in   the   West, 

27. 

Bacon,  Roger,  alluded  to,  201. 
Bacher,  W.,  on  Rashi,  221. 
Bahya.    See  Behaia  ben  Asher. 
Baptism.  See  Conversions;  Converts. 
Bar-sur-Aube,  fairs  held  at,  35. 
Baraitas,   the,    Rashi  on,    150;   term 

explained,  253,  n.  94. 
Barcelona,  alluded  to,  71,  81. 
Bartolocci,     bibliographer,     on     the 

name  of  Rashi,  33. 
Baruch  ben  Isaac,  casuist,  193. 
Basnage,   historian,  on  the  name  of 

Rashi,  34;  quoted,  57. 
Behaia  ben  Asher,  uses  Rashi's  Bible 

'  commentary,  208. 
Bellassez,  daughter  of  Rashi,  62,  245, 

n.   24. 

Bellette,  renders  ritual  decisions,  62. 
Ben  Sira,  the  wisdom  of,  how  known 

to  Rashi,  83. 
Benjamin  ben  Abraham  Anaw,   uses 

Rashi's  commentary,  206. 
Benjamin  of  Tudela,  traveller,  allud- 
ed to,  34. 


264 


INDEX 


Bereshit  Rablta,  Midrash,  used  by 
Kashi  in  his  Bible  commentary, 
114. 

Berliner,  M.,  on  Rashi,  32,  Ul,  221, 
224;  on  Jewish  education,  39;  on 
the  laazim,  101;  edits  a  new 
edition  of  Rashi' s  Pentateuch 
commentary,  221. 

Bernard,  Saint,  alluded  to,  54,  67,  74. 

Bet  Tosef,  index  to  rabbinical  liter- 
ature, 214-15. 

Bezalel  Ashkenazi,  on  Rashi,  157, 
255,  n.  122. 

Bible,  the,  place  of,  in  Jewish  edu- 
cation, 42;  thoroughly  known  by 
Rashi,  83;  Rashi's  devoted  study 
of,  90;  need  of  commentaries  on, 
105;  two  methods  of  interpre- 
ting, 106-8;  in  the  synagogue, 
107;  devoted  study  of,  by  Jews, 
128;  copies  of,  made,  128;  the 
text  of,  and  Rashi,  129-30;  the 
canon  of,  130. 

See  also  Commentaries,  Biblical; 
Commentaries,  Pentateuch;  Com- 
mentaries, the,  by  Rashi;  Com- 
mentary, the  Biblical,  by  Rashi; 
Commentary,  the  Pentateuch,  by 
Rashi;  Exegesis,  Biblical;  Penta- 
teuch, and  the  various  books  of 
the  Bible. 

Biblical  expressions  explained  by 
Rashi,  81. 

Bibliography  of  Rashi's  works,  231- 
43. 

Biur,  the  Mendelssohn  commentary 
on  the  Bible,  219. 

Blois,  Auto-da-f£  at,  fast  day  com- 
memorating, 189. 

Boethus,  alluded  to,  254,  n.  100. 

Bonastruc  da  Porta.  See  Moses  ben 
Nahman. 

Bondi,  the  brothers,  on  the  laazim, 
101. 

Bordeaux,  alluded  to,  243,  n.  2. 

Botany,  Rashi  conversant  with,  85. 

BCtticher,  exegesis  of,  113 

Breithaupt,  J.  F.,  translator  of 
Rashi's  Bible  Commentary,  217. 

Britain,  rabbinical  name  for,  244, 
n.  10. 

Buber,  S.,  publishes  various  works 
by  Rashi,  170,  221. 

Bunsen,  exegesis  of,  113. 

Burchard,  bishop  of  Worms,  writer 
on  canonical  law,  243,  n.  3. 

Burgundy,  early  settlement  of  Jews 
in,  18. 

Buxtorf,  John,  Hebraist,  on  the 
name  of  Rashi,  34;  on  Rashi,  217. 

Calligrapher,  Rashi  supposed  to  have 

been,  80. 
Carmoly,    E.,    on  Hebrew  literature 

in  France,  204. 


Cattle  raising,  pursued  by  Jews,  20. 

Celle,  Pierre  de,  scholar,  alluded  to, 
54. 

Chaldeans,  the,  the  influence  of,  on 
the  Jews,  108. 

Chalons-sur-SaOne,  the  Jews  of,  con- 
sult Rashi,  78,  164-5. 

Champagne,  the  Talmudic  studies  in, 
29;  native  province  of  Rashi,  34-5; 
the  Talmud  schools  of,  53-4;  dia- 
lect of,  spoken  by  Rashi,  55; 
the  language  of,  and  the  laazim, 
100. 

Charlemagne,  stimulates  letters,  19; 
and  Jewish  scholars,  25-6;  and 
Italian  scholars,  26. 

Charles  VI,  of  France,  expels  the 
Jews,  203. 

Charles  VH,  of  France,  alluded  to, 
246,  n.  28. 

Christianity,  polemics  against,  118- 
19,  198. 

Christians,  employed  by  Jews,  20; 
the  relation  of,  to  Jews,  162; 
and  Bible  exegesis,  216-17;  use 
Rashi's  work,  217. 

Chronicles,  the,  Rashi  on,  130. 

Cologne,  the  Jews  of,  and  the  First 
Crusade,  66. 

"  Columns  of  Exile."  See  Sefer 
Mizwot  Katan. 

Commentaries,  Biblical,  by  Moses 
ha-Darshan,  110;  by  Menahem 
ben  Helbo,  111;  by  Samuel  ben 
Melr, '126,  196-7;  by  Moses  Men- 
delssohn, 134,  219;  by  Joseph 
ben  Simon  Kara,  197;  by  Joseph 
Bekor-Shor,  198;  by  the  Tossa- 
flsts,  198;  called  Tossafot,  198-9. 
See  also  Commentaries,  Penta- 
teuch; Commentaries,  the,  by 
Rashi;  Commentary,  the  Bibli- 
cal, by  Rashi;  Commentary,  the 
Pentateuch,  by  Rashi;  Exegesis, 
Biblical. 

Commentaries,  Pentateuch,  by  Sam- 
uel ben  Melr,  196-7,  215;  by 
Joseph  Bekor-Shor,  198;  by 
Moses  ben  Nahman,  208. 
See  also  Commentaries,  Biblical; 
Commentary,  the  Biblical,  by 
Rashi;  Commentary,  the  Penta- 
teuch, by  Rashi. 

Commentaries,  Talmudic,  by  Ger- 
shom  ben  Judah,  28;  by  the 
scholars  of  Mayence,  51;  by 
Kalonymos  ben  Sabbatai,  58;  by 
Samuel  ben  Melr,  95,  97,  188; 
laazim  in,  99. 

See    also    Commentary,    the    Tal- 
mudic, by  Rashi. 

Commentaries,  the,  by  Rashi,  com- 
pleteness of,  90-1;  order  in  which 
composed,  91;  arrangement  of, 
91;  literary  limitations  of,  92; 


INDEX 


265 


diagrams  in,  94;  felicitous  lan- 
guage of,  96-7;  the  laazim  in, 
98-102;  numerous  copies  made  of, 
101;  common  characteristics  of, 
102-3;  value  of,  103;  well  known, 
204;  not  productive  of  original 
works,  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
211-12;  Isaiah  Horwitz  on,  218. 
See  also  Commentary,  the  Biblical, 
by  Rashi;  Commentary,  the  Tal- 
mudic,  by  Rashi. 

Commentary,  the  Biblical,  by  Rashi, 
and  Jewish  education,  42;  Rashi's 
dissatisfaction  with,  80,  125; 
completeness  of,  90-1;  how  com- 
posed, 91;  peculiarity  of  the 
laazim  in,  99;  translations,  etc., 
used  for,  105-6;  methods  em- 
ployed in,  111-12;  specimens 
taken  from,  112-18,  122-3;  a 
Haggadic  compilation,  120;  con- 
ventionality of,  122;  devotional 
character  of,  123-4;  pays  heed 
to  grammar,  126-8;  informality 
of,  132-3;  gaiety  of,  133;  place 
held  by,  133-4;  scope  of,  135; 
compared  with  the  Talmudic 
commentary,  135-7,  157;  origi- 
nality of,  136;  super-commen- 
taries on,  199,  215;  used  in 
Italy,  206;  used  in  Spain,  206, 
207;  used  by  Kabbalists,  208; 
Joseph  Karo  on,  215;  its  part  in 
Jewish  religious  life,  215;  reason 
for  the  popularity  of,  215;  trans- 
lations of,  217. 

See  also  Commentary,  the  Penta- 
teuch, by  Rashi;  Commentaries, 
the,  by  Rashi. 

Commentary,  the  Pentateuch,  by 
Rashi,  gaiety  of,  133;  super-com- 
mentaries on,  196,  211;  early 
date  of  printing  of,  214;  modifi- 
cations of,  214;  in  Jewish  reli- 
gious life,  215;  anniversary  edi- 
tion of,  221. 

See  also  Commentary,  the  Bibli- 
cal, by  Rashi;  Commentaries, 
the,  by  Rashi. 

Commentary,  the  Talmudic,  by 
Rashi,  completeness  of,  90-1; 
how  composed,  91;  diagrams  in, 
94;  peculiarity  of  the  laazim 
in,  99;  simple  explanations  in, 
102;  unconventional! ty  of,  122; 
pays  heed  to  grammar,  126; 
scope  of,  135;  compared  with  the 
Biblical  commentary,  135-7,  157; 
recensions  of,  135-6;  models  for, 
136-8;  popularity  of,  137;  com- 
prehensiveness of,  138;  individual 
method  used  in,  140;  precision 
of,  140-2;  usefulness  of,  ^142; 
moderation  of,  142-3;  parallel 
texts  used  for,  148;  methodology 


in,  143;  specimen  passages  from, 
144-9,  161-2,  153-5;  opinions  on, 
157-8;  renews  rabbinical  studies, 
185;  additions  to,  186,  187;  com- 
pared with  the  Tossafot,  191-2; 
accompanies  the  Babylonian  Tal- 
mud, 214;  popularity  of,  215-16; 
super-commentaries  on,  216;  not 
much  used  by  Christians,  217. 
See  also  Commentaries,  the,  by 
Rashi. 

Comestor,  Pierre,  scholar,  alluded 
to,  54. 

Communal  organization  among  the 
Jews,  20. 

Conversions,  numerous  in  France,  18; 
excommunication  the  cause  of, 
20;  during  the  First  Crusade, 
66-7. 

Converts,  forced,  Rashi  on,  67;  Re- 
sponsa  on,  163-4. 

Cracow,  alluded  to,  216. 

Creation,  the,  as  explained  by  Rashi, 
112-13. 

Crusade,    the   First,    victim   of,    58; 
the    effect    of,    on    the    relation 
between    Jews    and    Christians, 
162. 
See  also  Crusades,  the. 

Crusades,   the,  effects  of,  64-5,  66-7, 
67-8,  162;  the  economic  influence 
of,  245,  n.  27. 
See  also  Crusade,  the  First 

Daat  Zekenim,  Biblical  commen- 
tary, 199. 

Dampierre,  Talmud  school  at,  193, 
194;  data  about,  256,  n.  140. 

Daniel,  Rashi  on,  130;  quoted,  209. 

Daniel  ben  Jehiel,  fellow-student  of 
Rashi,  52. 

Dante,  alluded  to,  249,  n.  55. 

Darmesteter,  Arsene,  on  the  laazim, 
101-2;  on  the  Talmud,  142;  on 
Rashi's  Talmud  commentary,  158. 

David,  fellow-student  of  Rashi,  52. 

David,  the  author  of  Psalm  IX,  96. 

David  d'Estella,  on  Rashi,  206; 
grandson  of,  205. 

David  Ibn  Abi  Zimra  (Radbaz),  on 
Rashi,  156,  255,  n.  120. 

David  Kimhi,  uses  Rashi's  Bible 
commentary,  207;  data  about, 
267,  n.  146. 

Decrees,  by  Gershom  ben  Judah,  28. 

"  Defense  of  Solomon,"  by  Jacob 
ben  Joshua  Falk,  216. 

Derash,  method  of  interpreting 
Scriptures,  106,  107;  vogue  of, 
108-9,  110;  employed  by  Chris- 
tian theologians,  109-10;  ease  of, 
110;  used  by  Rashi,  111-12,  114, 
119-20,  124;  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra 
on,  207. 

See   also   Haggadic   Midraah,    the; 
Midrash. 


266 


INDEX 


Deuteronomy,  the  Book  of,  Midrash 

on,  247,  n.  38. 
Dikdukim,     on     Rashi's    Talmudic 

commentary,  97,  216. 
Dietary    laws,    the,    laazim   bearing 

on,  99. 

Disputation   at   Paris,    202;    at   Bar- 
celona. 257,  n.  147. 
"  Diwan,      by   Jehudah  ha-Levi,    as 

a  Jewish  product,  223. 
Don  Bendit.     See  Joseph  Porat  ben 

Moses. 
Donin,  Nicholas,  apostate,  denounces 

the  Talmud,  202. 
Dorbal.  See  Durbal. 
Dormitzer,  on  the  laasim,  101;  on 

Psalm  IX,  96,  248,  n.  52. 
Dunash  ben  Labrat,  grammarian,  the 

works  of,  used  by  Rashi,  84,  127; 

opposed    by    Jacob    Tarn,     190; 

data  about,  251,  n.  91. 
Durbal,  fellow-student  of  Rashi,  52; 

consults  Rashi,  79. 

Ecclesiastes,  Rashi  conversant  with 
the  Midrash  on,  83;  Rashi  on. 
130. 

Edels,  Samuel.    See  Samuel  Edels. 

Education,  early,  of  a  Jewish  child, 
89-42. 

Egypt,  Rashi's  supposed  journey 
through,  43;  the  Jews  of,  influ- 
enced by  the  Babylonian  Exile, 
108. 

Elhanan  ben  Isaac,  collaborator  of 
his  father,  Tossaflst,  193;  disci- 
ples of,  194. 

Eleazar  ben  Simon,  Tanna,  alleged 
author  of  liturgical  poems,  84, 
248,  n.  48. 

Eleazar  ha-Kalir,  liturgical  poet, 
known  to  Rashi,  84,  173;  Judah 
Sir  Leon  on,  248,  n.  48. 

Eleazar  of  Worms,  mystic  Talmud 
teacher,  48;  descendant  of  Rashi, 
212. 

Eliakim,  teacher  at  Speyer,  47. 

Eliakim  ha-Levi  ben  Meshullam,  fel- 
low-student of  Rashi,  52. 

Eliezer  (Jocelyn),  son-in-law  of 
Rashi,  62. 

Eliezer  ben  Hyrkanos,  supposed  com- 
piler of  the  Pirke  de  Rabbi 
Eliezer,  248,  n.  42. 

Eliezer  ben  Isaac,  the  Great,  pupils 
of,  29,  244,  n.  18;  and  Jacob 
ben  Yakar,  49-50;  cited  by 
Rashi,  84. 

Eliezer  ben  Nathan,  on  Rashi,  59, 
104,  249,  n.  58. 

Eliezer  ben  Samuel,  disciple  of  Jacob 
Tarn,  189. 

Eliezer  of  Beaugency,  disciple  of 
Samuel  ben  Meir,  197. 

Eliezer  of  Touques,  Tossaflst,  195. 

Elijah  ben  Abraham  Mizrahi,  author 


of  a  super-commentary  on  Rashi, 

211. 

Elijah  ben  Judah,  Tossaflst,  194. 
Elijah    Loanz,    Kabbalist,    descended 

from  Rashi,  213. 
Eleazar,   kinsman  of   Rashi,   and  his 

correspondent,  57. 
Ephraim,  alleged  husband  of  Bellas- 

sez,  245,  n.  24. 
Epstein,   on  Rashi,   32. 
Esau,  subject  of  Psalm  IX,  96. 
Esther,  Rashi  on,  130. 
Esther,  the  Fast  of,  Rashi  on,  167. 
Estori  Parhi,  on  Rashi,  205. 
Evreux,  Tossafot  of,  195. 
Ewald,  exegesis  of,  113. 
Excommunication    practiced    by    the 

Jews,  20. 
Exegesis,    Biblical,    pursued   by   the 

Jews  of  France,   25;   and   Chris- 
tians, 216-7. 

See  also  DerasJi;  Haggadic  Mid- 
rash,  the;  Halakic  Midrash,  the; 

Midrash,  Peshat. 
Exodus    XV,    1,    as    interpreted    by 

Rashi,  114-16. 

Exodus,  Midrash  on,  247,  n.  38. 
Exodus   XXV,    1,    as  interpreted   by 

Rashi,  117-18. 
Ezekiel,     the     Book     of,     quotation 

from,  40;  passage  in,  interpreted 

by  Rashi,  128. 
Ezra,   Rashi  on,  130. 

Fairs,  in  Champagne,  35;  Jews  par- 
ticipate in,  36. 

Falk.    See  Jacob  ben  Joshua  Falk. 

"  Father  and  Light  of  the  Captiv- 
ity," Rashi  calls  R.  Gershom, 
84. 

"  Father  of  grammarians,"  Hay- 
youdj,  127;  Solomon  ben  Meir, 
188. 

Fathers  of  the  Church,  the,  alluded 
to,  93. 

Five  Books  of  Moses.  See  Penta- 
teuch. 

"  Foundation."    See  Tesod. 

France,  early  settlement  of  Jews  in, 
18;  and  the  Crusades,  66;  the 
scholars  of,  make  use  of  Re- 
sponsa.  160;  the  rabbinical  move- 
ment in,  dominated  by  Rashi, 
184,  185;  Rashi's  influence  in, 
205;  rabbinical  name  for,  244, 
n.  10. 

See    also    France,     the    Jews    of; 
France,  Northern. 

France,  the  Jews  of,  intellectual 
pursuits  of,  18-19;  Babylonian 
influences  on,  27;  institute  pray- 
ers for  the  victims  of  the  First 
Crusade,  66;  adverse  fortunes  of, 
202,  203-4;  exiled,  203;  the  in- 
tellectuality of,  204;  after  the 
expulsion  from  France,  210-11. 


INDEX 


267 


See  also  France,  Northern,  the 
Jews  of. 

France,  Northern,  beginning  of  Jew- 
ish studies  in,  27;  centre  of 
Jewish  studies,  185. 

France,  Northern,  the  Jews  of,  17-18; 
happy  condition  of,  19-20;  occu- 
pations of,  20;  organized  in  com- 
munities, 20;  political  position 
of,  21;  relation  of,  to  Christians, 
21;  language  and  names  of,  22; 
intellectuality  of,  23;  supersti- 
tions of,  23;  devotion  to  the 
Law  of,  23-4;  literary  produc- 
tions of,  25;  connected  with 
those  of  Lorraine,  47;  tempera- 
ment of,  75;  theology  of,  75. 

Frankel,  Zecharias,  on  Rashi,  221; 
data  about,  259,  n.  162. 

Frankfort,  alluded  to,  215. 

French,  spoken  by  Rashi,  82;  the 
current  langnage  of  the  Jews  of 
France,  99. 

Frobert,  Saint,  the  parish  of,  the 
old  Jewry  of  Troyes,  38. 

Gabriel,  disciple  of  Moses  of  Paris, 
197. 

Gan,  by  Aaron  ben  Joseph,  199. 

Gedaliah,  the  Fast  of,  poem  for,  174. 

Geiger,  Abraham,  on  Rashi,  32;  exe- 
gesis of,  113;  data  about,  258, 
n.  158. 

Gemara,  the.    See  Talmud,  the. 

Gematria,  on  the  Tossafot  to  the 
Bible,  199. 

Genesis  I,  1,  as  interpreted  by  Rashi, 
112-3. 

Genesis  XXII,  1,  interpreted  by 
Rashi,  113-14. 

Geographical  knowledge  of  Rashi, 
81,  82. 

Geonim,  the,  cited  by  Rashi,  83, 
128;  used  by  Rashi,  143. 

Geonim,  the,  the  Responsa  of,  used 
by  Rashi,  140;  contain  some  of 
Rashi's,  170. 

German,  spoken  by  Rashi,  82;  the 
laazim  translated  into,  99. 

Germany,  beginning  of  Jewish  stu- 
dies in,  27;  Rashi's  supposed 
journey  through,  43;  the  scholars 
of,  make  use  of  Responsa,  160; 
the  rabbinical  movement  in, 
dominated  by  Rashi,  184,  185; 
abode  of  the  exiled  Jews  of 
France,  210. 

Gershom  ben  Judah  (Rabbenu  Ger- 
shom),  Talmudist,  28-9;  teach- 
er of,  28;  influence  of,  29;  work 
of,  29;  disciples  of,  29;  alleged 
date  of  death  of,  37;  commen- 
taries attributed  to,  51;  schools, 
founded  by  disciples  of,  57;  al- 
luded to,  72,  78;  cited  by  RaShi, 
84;  and  the  Massorah,  106; 


makes  a  copy  of  the  Bible,  128; 
predecessor  of  Rashi,  as  a  Tal- 
mud commentator,  136;  restrict 
text  emendations  in  the  Talmud, 
138-9;  autograph  manuscript  of 
the  Talmud  used  by  Rashi,  189. 
140. 

Gittin  37b,  as  interpreted  by  Rashi, 
148-9. 

Gittin  55b,  as  interpreted  by  Rashi. 
151-2. 

Glaber,  Raoul,  alluded  to,  74. 

Gleaned  Sheaves,  The.  See  Shlbbole 
ha-Leket. 

Glosa  hebratea,  title  given  to 
Rashi's  Bible  commentary,  201. 

Godfrey  of  Bouillon,  duke  of  Lower 
Lotharingia,  and  Rashi,  68-70, 
246,  n.  28. 

Graetz,  H.,  quoted,  51. 

Grammar,  heeded  by  Rashi,  126-8, 
141;  neglected  by  the  Jews,  216. 

Grammatical  studies,  in  Spain,  127. 

Great  Book  of  Precepts.  See  Sefer 
Mizwot  Gadol. 

Great  men,   characterized,   17. 

Greece,  Rashi's  supposed  journey 
through,  43. 

Greek,  supposed  to  be  known  by 
Rashi,  80,  82. 

Greeks,  the,  the  influence  of,  on  the 
Jews,  108. 

Gregory  IX,  Pope,  the  Talmud  de- 
nounced to,  202. 

Gregory  of  Tours,  quoted,  67. 

Giidemann,  M.,  alluded  to,  22. 

"  Guide  of  the  Perplexed,  The,"  by 
Maimonides,  as  a  Jewish  prod- 
uct, 223. 

Guizot,  quoted,  19. 

Hadar  Zekenim,  Biblical  commen- 
tary, 199. 

Haggadah,  the,  Rashi's  method  of 
explaining,  152;  in  the  Toesafot 
to  the  Bible,  199;  in  the  Tal- 
mud, 253,  n.  94. 

Haggadic  elements,  the,  in  Rashi's 
commentary,  make  it  popular, 
215. 

Haggadic    Midrash,    the,    explained, 
107,   247,   n.    38;   vogue  of,    108, 
110;    ease    of,    110;    quoted    by 
Rashi,  115. 
See  also  Derash. 

Haggadic  Midrashim,  the,  Rashi 
conversant  with,  83. 

Hagiographa,  the,  Targumim  of,  105; 
the  commentary  on,  by  Samuel 
ben  Melr,  197. 

Hal  Gaon,  supposed  master  of  Ger- 
shom  ben  Judah,  28;  date  of 
death  of,  37;  cited  by  Rashi,  83; 
data  about,  248,  n.  45. 

Halakah,  the,  Raghi's  attitude  to, 
166-7;  In  the  Talmud,  263,  n.  94. 


268 


INDEX 


Halakic    elements,    the,    in    Rashi's 

commentary,    make    it    popular, 

215. 
Halakic  Midrash,  the,  explained,  107, 

247,     n.     38;     adapted     to     the 

French-Jewish  intellect,  121. 
See    also    Derash;    Midrash,    Pe- 

shat. 

Halakic  Midrashim,  the,   Rashi  con- 
versant with,  83;  used  by  Rashi 

for  his  Talmud  commentary,  143. 
Halakot    Oedolot,    the,    cited    by 

Rashi,   83. 
Hananiah  ben  Hezekiah  ben   Garon, 

supposed  author  of  the  Hegillat 

Taanit,  246,  n.  35. 
Hananel     ben     Hushiel,     Talmudist, 

compared    with     Rashi,     139-40; 

method  of,  153;  data  about,  253, 

n.  97. 

Ha-Pardes.    See  Refer  ha-Pardes. 
Ha-Parnes,  work  by  Rashi,  71. 
Har,   name  for  Montpellier,   243,    n. 

10. 
Hasdal    Ibn     Shaprut,     alluded     to, 

251,  n.  91. 
Hayyoudj,  not  known  to  Rashi,  127; 

data  about,   252,   n.   92. 
Hazzekuni,   by   Hezekiah   ben   Ma- 

noah,   199;   super-commentary  to 

Rashi,   199. 
Heave    Offering,    the,    Book,    of,    by 

Baruch  ben  Isaac,  193. 
Hebrew,    handled    easily    by    Rashi, 

97;   a  literary  language  for  the 

Jews,  99;  Rashi's  discriminating 

knowledge  of,  128-9;  Mishnic  and 

Talmudic    development    of,    129; 

interest    in,    among    Christians, 

216. 
"  Hebrew  and  Chaldaic  Lexicon,"  by 

Buxtorf,  217. 
Heidenheim,    Wolf,    on    Rashi,    220; 

data  about,  258,  n.  158. 
Heilprin,    Jehiel,    on   the   genealogy 

of   Rashi,    213-4;    the   family  of, 

renowned,  214. 
Heller,  the  family  of,  connected  with 

Rashi,  258,  n.  154. 
Henry  I,   suzerain  of  the  barons  of 

Lorraine,  47. 
Henry  IV,  emperor  of  Germany,  and 

forced  converts,  67. 
Hezekiah,    alleged   redactor   of   Isai- 
ah's prophecies,  130. 
Hezekiah  ben  Manoah,  Biblical  com- 
mentary by,  199. 
Hiddushim,    on    Rashi's    Talmudic 

commentary,  216. 
Histoire  de  la  Bible  et  de  Vexe- 

gese    UWique,   by   L.    Wogue, 

quoted,  106-8. 
Hiyyah  bar  Abba,  supposed  redactor 

of  the  Tosefta,  246,  n.  87. 


"  Holy    War,    The,"    by    Melr    ben 

Simon,  205. 

Horace,  alluded  to,  41. 
Horwitz,    Isaiah.      See    Isaiah    Hor- 

witz. 

House  of  Joseph.    See  Bet  Tosef. 
Hugo,   Count  of  Champagne,  in  the 

First  Crusade,   68. 
Hullin,  Talmudical  treatise,  laazim 

bearing  on,  99. 

Ibn  Djanah,  not  known  to  Rashi, 
127;  alluded  to,  129;  data  about, 
251,  n.  92. 

Ile-de-France,  dialect  of,  100;  Tal- 
mud schools  in,  194. 

Immanuel  ben  Solomon  Romi,  and 
Rashi,  206. 

Imre  Noam,  by  Jacob  of  Illescas, 
199. 

Inquisition,  the,  confiscates  Rashi's 
commentaries,  214;  hostile  to 
Rashi's  works,  217-18. 

Interpreter  of  the  Law,  epithet 
given  to  Rashi,  104. 

Isaac,  father  of  Rashi,  alleged  dis- 
tinction of,  37-8;  legend  about, 
38-9. 

Isaac,  quoted  at  the  beginning  of 
Rashi's  commentary  on  Genesis, 
88. 

Isaac,  the  sacrifice  of,  as  explained 
by  Rashi,  113-14. 

Isaac  Abrabanel,  on  Rashi,  211;  on 
Josephus,  248,  n.  48. 

Isaac  Alfasi,  Talmudist,  alluded  to, 
97,  99,  208,  209;  method  of,  153; 
authority  of,  156;  the  work  of, 
compared  with  Rashi's,  157; 
commentary  on,  249,  n.  53;  data 
about,  254,  n.  113. 

Isaac  ben  Abraham  the  Younger, 
Tossaflst,  193;  Biblical  commen- 
tary by,  198. 

Isaac  ben  Asher  ha-Levi,  pupil  of 
Samuel  ben  Melr,  188. 

Isaac  ben  Durbal  (Durbalo),  sup- 
posed redactor  of  the  Mafyzor 
Vltry,  171-2. 

Isaac  ben  Eleazer  ha-Levi,  teacher 
of  Rashi,  50-1,  66;  surname  of, 
244,  n.  18. 

Isaac  ben  Joseph,  Tossafist,  195. 

Isaac  ben  Judah,  disciple  of  Ger- 
shom  ben  Judah,  29;  teacher  of 
Rashi,  51;  on  Rashi,  59;  and 
variants  in  the  Talmud,  86. 

Isaac  ben  Judah  ha-Levi,  Biblical 
commentary  by,  199. 

Isaac  ben  Melr  (Ribam),  grandson  of 
Rashi,  son  of  Melr  ben  Samuel, 
Tossafist,  62,  188. 

Isaac  ben  Menahem,  alluded  to,  62; 
and  Rashi,  85;  Talmudist,  245, 
n.  11. 


INDEX 


269 


Isaac  ben  Moses  of  Vienna,  on  era- 
sures in  Rashi's  autograph  manu- 
script of  the  Talmud,  91,  139: 
Tossaflst,  194. 

Isaac  ben  Samuel  the  Elder,  great- 
grandson  of  Rashi,  Tossaflst,  192- 
8;  establishes  the  foundation  for 
the  Tossafot,  193;  son  of,  193; 
disciples  of,  193,  194;  Biblical 
commentary  by,  198. 

Isaac  ben  Sheshet  (Ribash),  on  the 
influence  of  French  Talmudic 
science,  211;  on  Rashi,  255,  n. 
122;  data,  about,  257,  n.  150. 

Isaac  ha-Levi,  disciple  of  Gershom 
ben  Judah,  29;  in  correspond- 
ence with  Rashi,  58;  on  Rashi, 
58-9;  Rashi  differs  with,  78. 

Isaacides,  Solomon,  name  of  Rashi, 
34. 

Isaiah,  Rashi  on,  129,  130. 

Isaiah  da  Trani,  influenced  by  Rashi, 
206;  alluded  to,  256,  n.  129. 

Isaiah  Horwitz,  on  Rashi's  commen- 
taries, 218;  son  of,  218. 

Ishmael,  redactor  of  the  Mekilta, 
247,  n.  38. 

Italian,  the  Jaazim  translated  into, 
99. 

Italy,  learning  in,  26;  Jewish 
scholars  of,  26;  Rashi's  supposed 
journey  through,  43;  the  scholars 
of,  make  use  of  Responsa,  160; 
abode  of  the  exiled  Jews  of 
France,  210-11;  Rashi's  works 
burnt  in,  218. 

Izhaki,  Shelomo,  name  of  Rashi,  34. 

Jacob  ben  Joshua  Falk,  defends 
Rashi,  216. 

Jacob  ben  Melr  (Rabbenu  Tarn; 
Jacob  Tarn),  grandson  of  Rashi, 
62,  188;  on  Rashi's  Talmudic 
commentary,  157;  quotes  Rashi's 
view  of  deposits,  161;  master  of, 
•  186;  Shemaiah  connected  with, 
187;  prominence  of,  189;  disci- 
ples of,  189;  sufferings  of,  189; 
fast  day  instituted  by,  189-90; 
death  of,  190;  intellectual  quali- 
ties and  works  of,  190;  inge- 
nuity of,  as  a  Talmudist,  190-1; 
on  Rashi,  192;  nephew  of,  192-3; 
and  Elijah  ben  Judah,  194;  dis- 
ciple of,  198;  ends  a  grammati- 
cal controversy,  251,  n.  91. 

Jacob  ben  Simson,  disciple  of  Rashi, 
186. 

Jacob  ben  Yakar,  disciple  of  Ger- 
shom ben  Judah,  29;  teacher  of 
Rashi,  49-50;  humility  of,  49; 
and  Eliezer  the  Great,  49-50; 
alluded  to,  58;  quoted,  75. 

Jacob  de  Bagnols,  casuist,  on  Rashi, 
205. 
18 


Jacob  Molin  ha-Levi  (Maharil),  on 
Jewish  marriage  ceremonies,  64, 
245,  n.  25. 

Jacob  of  Illescas,  Biblical  commen- 
tary by,  199. 

Jacob  of  Orleans,  disciple  of  Jacob 
Tarn,  189;  Biblical  commentary 
by,  198. 

Jacob  Tarn.    Bee  Jacob  ben  Melr. 

Jehiel  ben  Joseph  (Sir  Vives),  Tos- 
saflst, 195;  disciples  of,  195; 
Biblical  commentary  by,  198. 

Jehudah  ha-Levi,  alluded  to,  222, 
223. 

Jeitteles,  and  the  laazim,  101. 

Jeremiah,  Talmudic  explanation  of  a 
verse  in,  rejected  by  Rashi,  94. 

Jericho,  name  for  Lunel,  243,  n.  10. 

Jerusalem,   alluded  to,   215. 

Jews,  the,  and  the  First  Crusade, 
67-8;  the  relation  of,  to  Chris- 
tians, 162;  middle  ages  of,  212; 
in  England,  244,  n.  16;  develop 
commerce,  246,  n.  27. 
See  also  under  France. 

Joan  of  Arc,  alluded  to,  246,  n.  28. 

Job,  Rashi  on,  130. 

Jocelyn,  son-in-law  of  Rashi,  62. 

Jochebed,  daughter  of  Rashi,  wife  of 
Melr  ben  Samuel,  62,  188. 

Joel  Sirkes,  explains  Rashi's  Tal- 
mudic commentaries,  216. 

Johanan  ha-Sandlar,  supposed  an- 
cestor of  Rashi,  37,  213-4,  244, 
n.  IL 

Joinville,  geographical  notions  of, 
82. 

Jonathan  ben  Uzriel,  Aramaic  Bible 
translation  by,  83,  105. 

Jose  ben  Halafta,  alleged  author  of 
the  Seder  Olam,  248,  n.  43. 

Joseph  Bekor-Shor  (Joseph  ben 
Isaac),  Biblical  commentary  by, 
198. 

Joseph  ben  Ephraim  Karo,  Talmu- 
dist, on  Rashi,  214-15. 

Joseph  ben  Judah,  disciple  of  Rashi, 
186. 

Joseph  ben  Judah  Ezra,  fellow-stu- 
dent of  Rashi,  52. 

Joseph  ben  Simon  Kara,  and  Mena- 
hem  ben  Helbo.  Ill;  Biblical 
commentaries  by,  197. 

Joseph  Ibn  Plat,  additions  by,  to 
the  Mahzor  Vitry,  170. 

Joseph  Pora't  ben  Moses,  disciple  of 
Samuel  ben  Melr,  188. 

Joseph  Tob  Elem,  cited  by  Rashi, 
84;  makes  a  copy  of  the  Bible, 
128. 

Josephus,  alleged  author  of  the 
Tosippon,  84;  Isaac  Abrabanel 
on,  248,  n.  47. 

Judah  ben  Abraham,  disciple  of 
Rashi,  186. 


270 


INDEX 


Judah  ben  Barzillal,  part  compiler 
of  the  Sefer  ha-Orah,  171. 

Judah  ben  David,  at  the  disputation 
of  Paris,  195. 

Judah  ben  Eliezer,  Biblical  commen- 
tary by,  199. 

Judah  ben  flat,  redactor  of  the  Sifra, 
247,  n.  38. 

Judah  ben  Melr  ha-Cohen  (Leon- 
tin),  master  of  Gershom  ben 
Judah,  28. 

Judah  ben  Nathan,  scholar,  son-in- 
law  of  Rashi,  62,  187. 

Judah  Ibn  Koreish,  grammarian,  how 
known  to  Rashi,  84,  248,  n.  49. 

Judah  Sir  Leon,  Tossaflst,  194;  re- 
establishes the  Talmud  school  at 
Paris,  194;  disciples  of,  194;  suc- 
cessor of,  194;  Biblical  commen- 
tary by,  198;  Nahmanides  sup- 
posed disciple  of,  208;  on  Elea- 
zar  ha-Kalir,  248,  n.  48. 

Judah  the  Saint,  redactor  of  the 
Mishnah,  51,  252,  n.  94. 

Just,  the,  Book  of.    See  Jacob  Tarn. 

Kabbalah,  the,  Rashi  supposed  to  be 
an  adept  of,  80;  forerunner  of, 
83. 

Kahana,  Talmudist,  the  Pesikta  at- 
tributed to,  247,  n.  39. 

Kalonymides,  the,  family  of  Jewish 
scholars,  27.  See  Kalonymos, 
and  Meshullam  ben  Kalonymos. 

Kalonymos,  Jewish  scholar,  at  May- 
ence,  25-6. 

Kalonymos  ben  Sabbatal,  Talmudic 
scholar,  alluded  to,  58. 

Kara.  See  Joseph  ben  Simon  Kara; 
Simon. 

Karo.  See  Joseph  ben  Ephraim 
Karo. 

Karaites,  the,  exegesis  of,  109. 

Katzenellenbogen,  the  family  of,  con- 
nected with  Rashi,  258,  n.  154. 

Kiryat  Yeftrim,  name  for  Nlmes,  243, 
n.  10. 

Konteros,  Rashi's  Talmud  commen- 
tary, 158. 

Krotoszyn,  alluded  to,  215. 

Laazim  (leazim),  glosses,  in 
Rashi's  commentaries,  98-102 ; 
French  words  in  Hebrew  char- 
acters, 98;  no  innovation,  98-9; 
words  for  common  acts,  99;  in 
commentaries  by  disciples  of 
Rashi,  99;  translated  into  other 
languages,  99;  number  of,  99; 
philological  value  of,  100-1;  cor- 
rupted by  copyists,  101;  restora- 
tion of,  101;  deciphered  by  Men- 
delssohn, 219. 

La  Fontaine,  compared  with  Rashi, 
133. 

Lagny,  fairs  held  at,  35. 


Lamentations,  the  Midrash  on,  Raahi 
conversant  with,  83;  Rashi  on, 
130. 

Laudau,  and  the  laasim,  101. 

Languages  spoken  by  Rashi,  55,  82. 

Langue  d'ott,  fewness  of  the  monu- 
ments of,  100. 

Latin,  Rashi  supposed  to  have 
known,  80;  Rashi's  Bible  com- 
mentary translated  into,  217. 

Law,  the.  See  Bible,  the;  Penta- 
teuch, the;  Talmud,  the. 

Legends,  value  of,  25. 

Legends  about  Rashi,  37-9,  43-5,  48, 
54-5,  38-9,  57,  61,  68-70,  71-2,  141, 
218-9. 

L'Empereur,  Hebraist,  on  the  birth- 
place of  Rashi,  34. 

Leontin.  See  Judah  ben  Melr  ha- 
Cohen. 

Lessing,  W.  E.,  quoted,  41. 

L6vi,  Israel,  alluded  to,  22;  on 
Rashi,  224. 

Leviticus,  the  Book  of,  taught  to 
children,  42;  Midrash  on,  247, 
n.  38. 

Lexicon,  Talmudic,  by  Machir,  29; 
by  Menahem  ben  Saruk,  251,  n. 
91. 

Light,  Book  of.  See  Sefer  ha- 
Orah. 

"  Light  of  the  Captivity,"  epithet 
given  to  Rashi,  72. 

"Light  of  the  Exile,  The,"  epithet 
of  Gershom  ben  Judah,  28. 

Likkute  ha-Pardes,  alluded  to, 
256,  n.  129. 

Little  Book  of  Precepts.  See  Sefer 
Mizwot  Katan. 

Liturgical  poem,  by  Jacob  Tarn,  190. 

Liturgical  poems,  by  Rashi,  num- 
ber of,  173;  style  and  language 
of,  174;  quoted,  174-5,  176-8; 
emotional  character  of,  176; 
monotony  of,  178-9;  interest  at- 
taching to,  179. 

Liturgical  poetry,  by  the  Jews  of 
France  and  Germany,  173-4. 

Loria.     See  Luria. 

Lorraine,  Talmud  studies  in,  25,  26- 
7. 

Lorraine,  good  fortune  of  the  Jews 
of,  46-7;  French  character  of, 
47;  the  Jews  of,  and  those  of 
Northern  France,  47;  dialect  of, 
100. 
See  also  Mayence. 

Lothair,  the  country  of,  Lorraine,  47. 

Lotharingia,  Lorraine,  47. 

L5we,  and  the  laazim,  101. 

Lucca,  home  of  the  Kalonymides,  25. 

Lulab,  the,  Talmudic  passage  on, 
145-7. 

Lunel,  alleged  birthplace  of  Rashi, 
32,  34;  Rashi  supposed  to  have 


INDEX 


271 


studied    at,    43;     name    of,     in 

Hebrew,  243,  n.  10. 
Luria,  the  family  of,  descended  from 

Rashi,    213;    origin   of   name   of, 

213;   renowned,   214. 
See    Solomon    ben    Samuel    Spira; 

Solomon    Luria;    Yosselmann    of 

Rosheim;     Elijah    Loanz;     Heil- 

prin ;    Jehiel. 

Luther,  influenced  by  Rashi,  201. 
Luzzatto,     Samuel     David,     defends 

Rashi,  220. 
Lyons,  alluded  to,  243,  n.  2. 

Machir,  author  of  a  Talmudic  lexi- 
con, 29;  the  sons  of,  29,  52. 

Machirites,  the,  one  of,  makes  addi- 
tions to  the  Sefer  ha-Pardes, 
171. 

Maharil.    See  Jacob  Molin  ha-Levi. 

Maharsha.     See  Samuel  Edels. 

Maharshal.     See  Solomon  Luria. 

Mahberet,  by  Menahem  ben  Saruk 
251,  n.  91. 

Mahzor,  by  Jacob  ben  Simson,  186. 

MaJizor  Vitry,  work  composed  un- 
der the  influence  of  Rashi,  170; 
contents  of,  171;  author  of,  172, 
186;  importance  of,  172. 

Maimonides,  Moses,  contrasted  with 
Rashi,  14;  alluded  to,  57,  67, 
69,  70,  81,  92,  155,  208,  222,  223; 
supposed  intercourse  of,  with 
Rashi,  43;  authority  of,  156; 
influence  of,  compared  with 
Rashi's,  184;  has  no  disciples, 
186. 

Manumission  of  slaves,  Talmudic  pas- 
sage on,  148-9. 

Manuscripts,  limited  number  of, 
owned  by  Jews,  24. 

Marriages,  among  the  Jews  of 
France,  62-4,  245,  n.  25. 

Martini,  Raymond,  on  the  name  of 
Rashi,  34. 

Martyrs,    Responsa   on,    163. 

Massorah,  the,  used  by  Rashi,  105-6. 

Massorah,  the  Great,  on  Psalm  IX, 
96. 

Mattathias  ben  Moses,  disciple  of 
Rashi,  186. 

Mattathias  Treves,  daughter  of,  de- 
scended from  Rashi,  213. 

Mayence,  Talmudic  studies  at,  25, 
26-7,  28,  29;  Rashi'g  sojourn  at, 
45-6,  50-1;  commentaries  of  the 
scholars  of,  51;  the  Jews  of,  and 
the  First  Crusade,  66;  customs 
of,  in  the  Sefer  ha-Pardes,  1TL 

Medicine,  Rashi  supposed  to  have 
known,  80. 

Megillat    Taanit,    how    known    to 
Rashi,   83;    contents  of,   246,   n.,. 
85. 

Megttlot,  the  five,  Rashi's  commen- 
tary on,  216. 


Melr  ben  Isaac,  liturgical  poet,  244, 
n.  19. 

Melr  ben  Isaac  ben  Samuel,  liturgi- 
cal poet,  fellow-student  of  Rashi, 
52,  244,  n.  19. 

Metr  ben  Samuel,  of  Rameru,  son-in- 
law  and  fellow-student  of  Rashi. 
52,  62,  187-8;  alluded  to,  56; 
family  of,  188. 

Melr  ben  Simon,  on  Rashi,  205. 

Melr  ha-Cohen,  fellow-student  of 
Rashi,  52. 

Melr  of   Rothenburg,   Toesaflst,   194, 

Mekilta,  the,  Rashi  conversant 
with,  83,  247,  n.  38. 

Memoirs,  Jewish,  paucity  of,  31. 

Menahem  ben  Helbo,  and  Rashi,  85; 
commentary  by,  110-11;  nephew 
of,  197. 

Menahem  ben  Machir,  fellow-student 
of  Rashi,  52. 

Menahem  ben  Saruk,  grammarian, 
known  to  Rashi,  84;  on  Psalm 
IX,  96,  248.  n.  52;  works  of, 
used  by  Rashi,  127;  defended  by 
Jacob  Tarn,  190;  data  about, 
251,  n.  91. 

Menahem  ben  Solomon  Melri,  on 
Rashi,  205. 

Menahem  ben  Zerah,  on  Rashi's  Tal- 
mudic commentary,  157-8;  on 
Rashi,  205;  data  about,  255,  n. 
123. 

Menahem  of  Joigny,  makes  a  copy 
of  the  Bible,  128. 

Mendelssohn,  Moses,  and  the  1  ami  in. 
101;  on  Rashi,  123;  the  Biblical 
commentary  by,  compared  with 
Rashi's  134;  uses  Rashi,  219. 

Meor  ha-Oolah,  epithet  of  Ger- 
shom  ben  Judah,  28. 

Meshullam  ben  Ealonvmos,  Talmu- 
dist,  27;  cited  by  "Rashi,  84. 

Metz,  home  of  Gerehom  ben  Judah, 
28. 

Mezuzah,  the,  Responsa  by  Rashi 
on,  159. 

Michelet,  quoted,  74,  133. 

Middle  Ages  of  the  Jews,  212. 

Midrash,  the,  purpose  of,  121;  de- 
votional uses  of,  128-4;  popu- 
larized by  Rashi,  124-5,  220;  in 
Spain,  127;  rejected  by  Joseph 
Kara  as  a  method  of  Bible  inter- 
pretation, 197. 

See  also  Derash;  Exegesis,  Bibli- 
cal; Haggadic  Midrash;  Halakic 
Midrash;  Peshat ;  Rabbot,  the, 
etc. 

Midrash   Rabba.    See  Rabbot. 

Midrashim,  used  by  Nicholas  de 
Lyra,  200. 

Midrashim,  the  Haggadic.  See  Haf- 
gadic  Midrashim,  the. 


272 


INDEX 


Midrashim,  the  Halakic.  See  Hala- 
kic  Midrashim,  the. 

Minhat  Yehudah,  by  Judah  ben 
Eliezer,  199. 

Minim,  the,  Christians,  119. 

Miriam,  a  name  frequently  used  in 
Rashi's  family,  213. 

Miriam,  daughter  of  Rashi,  62. 

Miriam,  daughter  of  Solomon  ben 
Samuel  Spira,  scholar,  213. 

Miriam,  granddaughter  of  Rashi, 
daughter  of  Meir  ben  Samuel, 
wife  of  Samuel  of  Vitry,  62,  188. 

Mishnah,  the,  the  redaction  of,  51; 
Rashi  conversant  with,  83;  Rashi 
on  the  composition  of,  150;  on 
trade  between  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians, 161;  explanation  of,  252, 
n.  94. 

Mishneh  Torah,  the,  by  Maimon- 
ides,  alluded  to,  92,  184,  194. 

Money-lending,  occupation  of  the 
Jews,  20. 

Montpellier,  name  for,  243,  n.  10. 

Mordecai  ben  Hillel,  Tossafist,   195. 

Moses  ben  Abraham,  disciple  of  Ja- 
cob Tarn,  189. 

Moses  ben  Jacob,  Tossafist,  194. 

Moses  ben  Nahman  (Bonastruc  da 
Porta,  Nahmanides),  contrasted 
with  Rashi,  76;  on  Samuel  ben 
Meir,  197;  on  Rashi,  208;  Kabba- 
list,  208;  introduces  the  works  of 
the  French  Talmudists  into 
Spain,  208;  data  about,  257,  n. 
147. 

Moses  ben  Shneor,  Tossafist,  195. 

Moses  ha-Darshan,  alleged  teacher 
of  Rashi,  43;  known  to  Rashi, 
84;  commentary  by,  110-11. 

Moses  Isserles,  connected  with  the 
Rashi  family,  258,  n.  154. 

Moses  of  Coucy,  at  the  disputation 
of  Paris,  195;  Biblical  commen- 
tary by,  198. 

Moses  of  Leon,  uses  the  Bible  com- 
mentary of  Rashi,  208. 

Moses  of  Paris,  disciple  of  Samuel 
ben  Metr,  197. 

Moses  of  Pontoise,  Biblical  commen- 
tary by,  198. 

Munster,  Sebastian,  Hebraist,  on  the 
name  of  Rashi,  34. 

Nabal,  subject  of  Psalm  IX,  96. 

Nahmanides.  See  Moses  ben  Nah- 
man. 

Narbonne,  Rashi  supposed  to  have 
studied  at,  43. 

Nathan  ben  Jehiel,  fellow-student  of 
Rashi,  52. 

Nathan  ben  Jehiel,  lexicographer, 
legendary  relation  of,  to  Rashi, 
141;  the  work  of,  compared  with 
Rashi's,  157;  and  Rashi,  253, 
n.  98;  data  about,  255,  n.  121. 


Nathan  ben  Machir,  fellow-student  of 

Rashi,    52;    alleged    compiler    of 

Sefer  ha-Orah,  171. 
Natronai,    Gaon,    supposed   visit    of, 

to  France,  27. 
Nehemiah,  Rashi  on,  130. 
Neumann,  and  the  laazim,  101. 
New    moon,    the,    Talmudic    passage 

on,  143-5. 
Nicholas     de    Lyra,     Hebraist,     and 

Rashi,  200-1;   commentary  of,  on 

Rashi's  Bible  commentary,  217. 
Nile,   the,   crude  notions  about,   82. 
Nlmes,  name  for,  243,  n.  10. 
Nissim      Gcrundi,      compared      with 

Rashi  as  a  commentator,  76,  97; 

influenced  by  Rashi,  209. 
Normandy,  Talmud  schools  in,  194. 
Numbers,   the  Book  of,   Midrash  on, 

247,  n.  38. 

Obadiah,     Bible    scholar,     cited    by 

Joseph  Bekor-Shor,  198. 
Olbert,  scholar,  alluded  to,  54. 
Olmtitz,  Bishop  of,  and  Rashi,  43-4. 
Onkelos,    the    Bible    translation    by, 

used  by   Rashi,   83,   105;    quoted 

by  Rashi,  115,  117. 
Oppenheim,  David  Joshua,  builds  the 

school  at  Worms,  49. 
Or  Zarua,  by  Isaac  ben  Moses,  194. 
Orient,    the,    Rashi's    influence    in, 

205. 

Paaneah  Kazan,  by  Isaac  ben  Ju- 
dah ha-Levi,  199. 

Pablo  Christiano,  alluded  to,  257,  n. 
147. 

Palestine,  Rashi's  supposed  journey 
through,  43. 

PantalSon,  Saint,  the  church  of, 
originally  a  synagogue,  36. 

Paradise,  Book  of.  See  Sefer  ha- 
Pardes. 

Paris,  Talmud  school  at,  194,  195. 

Parshandata,     epithet     given     to 
Rashi,   104,  249,  n.   59. 

Passover,    ceremonial    for,    186. 

Pentateuch,  the  place  of,  in  Jewish 
education,  42;  in  the  synagogue, 
107;  Derash  freely  used  by  Rashi 
for,  120;  Rashi's  attitude  toward, 
121,  122. 

See  also  Bible,  the;  Commentaries, 
Biblical ;  Commentaries,  Penta- 
teuch; Commentaries,  the,  by 
Rashi;  Commentary,  the  Bibli- 
cal, by  Rashi;  Commentary,  the 
Pentateuch,  by  Rashi;  Exegesis, 
Biblical. 

Pentecost,  Jewish  children  begin 
their  education  on,  40. 

Perez  ben  Elia,  Tossafist,  195. 

Persia,  Rashi's  supposed  journey 
through,  43. 


INDEX 


273 


Persian,     Rashi    supposed    to    have 

known,  82. 
Persians,    the,    the   influence   of,    on 

the  Jews,  108. 
Perus,    title   given   to   Rashi's  Bible 

commentary,   20L 
Peshat,     method     of     interpreting 

Scriptures,   106,    107;    persistence 

of,  109;  used  by  Rashi,  111,  117, 

118,   122;   used  by  Abraham  Ibn 

Ezra,   132;   used  by  Samuel  ben 

Metr,  196;  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra  on, 

207. 

See  also  Halakic  Midrash,  the. 
Pesikta,  the,  Rashi  conversant  with, 

83;    on   Psalm   IX,    96;    contents 

of,  247,  n.  39. 

Pesikta  Rabbati,  247,  n.  39. 
Philip  Augustus,  of  France,  and  the 

Jews,  194,  202. 
Philip    the   Fair,    of   France,    exiles 

the  Jews,  203. 
Phylacteries,  Responsa  by  Rashi  on, 

"159. 
Piedmont,  abode  of  the  exiled  Jews 

of  France,  210. 
Pindar,  alluded  to,  41. 
Pious,  the.  Book  of,  by  Eliezer  ben 

Samuel,  189. 
Pirke  de  Rabbi  Eliezer,  the,  Rashi 

conversant    with,    83;    character 

of,  248,  n.  42. 

Poland,  the  centre  of  Judaism,  210. 
Polemics    against    Christianity,    118- 

19,  198. 
Pollak,    the    family    of,    connected 

with   Rashi,   258,  n.   154. 
Polygamy,     forbidden    by     Gershom 

"ben  Judah,  28. 
Prague,  Rashi  supposed  to  have  died 

at,    32;    Rashi's    supposed    visit 

to,   44-5;   the  Jews  of,   venerate 

the  grave  of  Rashi,  71. 
Printing,  the  discovery  of,  increases 

Rashi's  popularity,  214. 
Prophets,  the,  in  the  synagogue,  107; 

the  commentary  on,  by  Samuel 

ben  Melr,  197. 
Provence,   early  settlement  of  Jews 

in,  18;  Rashi's  influence  in,  205. 
Proverbs,     the,     allegorically    inter- 
preted by  Rashi,  119;  Rashi  on, 

130. 

Provins,  fairs  held  at,  35. 
Psalm  IX,   Rashi  on,  96. 
Psalm     XXin,     as     interpreted     by 

Rashi,  122-3. 

Psalm  XCIII,   quoted,  60. 
Psalms,    the,   Rashi   conversant  with 

the  Midrash  on,  83;   Rashi's  in- 
terpretation of,  119. 
Pseudo-Jonathan,   a  Targum,   known 

to  Rashi,  249,  n.  60;  250,  n.  72. 
Pseudo-Rashi    on    Alfasi,     and    the 

laazim,  99. 


Pugio  fldei,  work  of  Raymond 
Martini,  34. 

Rab,  Babylonian  Amora,  alluded  to, 
54,  253,  n.  94. 

Rabbenu  Gershom.  See  Gershom  ben 
Judah. 

Rabbenu  Tarn.    See  Jacob  ben  Melr. 

Rabbot,   a   Midrash,    Rashi   conver- 
sant with,  83;  contents  of,  247, 
n.  39. 
See  also  Bereshit  Rabba. 

Rachel  (Bellassez),  daughter  of 
Rashi,  62. 

Radbaz.    See  David  Ibn  Abi  Zimra. 

Rameru  (Ramerupt),  home  of  Rash- 
bam  62;  centre  for  Jewish 
studies,  187,  188;  decline  of, 
193;  data  about,  256,  n.  134. 

Ramleh,  alluded  to,  68. 

Rapoport,  Solomon  Judah,  on  Ra- 
shi, 221;  data  about,  258,  n. 
161. 

Rashbam.    See  Samuel  ben  Melr. 

Rashi,  contrasted  with  Maimonides, 
14;  the  forerunner  of,  28;  fellow- 
students  of,  29,  51-2;  need  for, 
29-30;  teachers  of,  29,  49-51, 
58,  84;  scant  information  about, 
31;  cities  claiming,  31-2,  34; 
writers-  on,  32;  periods  in  the 
life  of,  33;  names  of,  33-4,  243,  n. 
9.  Troyes  in  the  works  of,  36; 
date  of  birth  of,  37;  illustrious 
ancestry  of,  37-8;  legends  con- 
nected with  the  birth  of,  38-9; 
early  education  of,  39,  43;  Bible 
commentary  of,  and  Jewish  edu- 
cation, 42;  travels  of,  43-6;  in 
Prague,  44-5;  geographical  no- 
tions of,  45;  privations  of,  46; 
in  Germany,  47-8;  in  Worms,  48- 
60;  on  Jacob  ben  Yakar,  50; 
compared  with  Judah  the  Saint, 
51;  on  Melr  ben  Isaac  ben 
Samuel,  52;  on  his  teachers,  52; 
the  marriage  of,  53;  unity  of 
life  of,  53;  in  Champagne,  53; 
Kabbalistic  belief  about,  54; 
legend  about  dwelling  of,  54-5; 
languages  spoken  by,  55,  82; 
connected  with  Troyes,  65-6; 
spiritual  qualities  of,  55;  quoted, 
66;  authority  of,  66-7;  corres- 
pondents of,  57,  160;  and  God- 
frey of  Bouillon,  68-70,  246,  n. 
28;  and  his  companion  in  Para- 
dise, 71;  death  of,  71-2;  founds 
a  Talmud  school,  57,  59-60;  aa 
head  of  a  Talmud  school,  67-8; 
^  Isaac  ha-Levi  on,  58-9;  Isaac  ben 
Judah  on,  59;  Eliezer  ben  Na- 
than on,  69;  and  his  disciples, 
60,  186-7.  187-93;  daughters  of, 
61-2,  245;  n.  22;  attitude  of, 


274 


INDEX 


toward  forced  converts,  67,  164; 
sources  of  information  about,  73; 
virtues  of,  74,  76-9,  80;  intellec- 
tual qualities  of,  74;  theology  of, 
75-6;  a  Responsum  of,  76-7;  at- 
titude of,  toward  his  teachers, 
77-8;  in  his  capacity  as  rabbi, 
78;  as  a  correspondent,  78-9; 
ready  to  avow  errors  and  ignor- 
ance, 79;  Bible  commentary  of, 
80;  supposed  learning  of,  80-2; 
the  limitations  of,  81-2;  books 
known  to,  83-4,  247,  notes  38-41, 
249,  n.  60;  and  his  relation  to 
his  contemporaries,  84-5;  scien- 
tific knowledge  of,  85;  scientific 
probity  of,  86;  debt  of  posterity 
to,  86;  threefold  functions  of,  89- 
90;  characterization  of  the  com- 
mentaries of,  90-103;  lacks 
creative  force  and  literary 
ability,  92,  93,  97;  not  a  sys- 
tematizer,  92-3;  clearness  of, 
93-4;  precision  of,  94-5;  brevity 
of,  95-6;  on  Samuel  ben  Melr, 
95;  Azulai  on,  95;  on  Psalm  IX, 
96;  suggestive  language  of,  96-7; 
the  French  glosses  (laaziiri)  of, 
98-102;  Eliezer  ben  Nathan  on, 
104;  interpreter  of  the  Law,  104; 
translations  of  the  Bible,  etc., 
used  by,  105-6;  and  methods  of 
interpretation,  110-11;  and  the 
Bible  commentators  preceding 
him,  110-11;  and  the  Midrash, 
111-12,  114,  119-20;  specimen  pas- 
sages from  the  Bible  commentary 
of,  112-18,  122-3;  on  Christianity, 
118-19;  allegorical  exegesis  by, 
119;  attitude  of,  to  the  Bible  and 
the  Talmud,  121;  as  popularizer, 
124-5;  recognizes  the  imperfec- 
tion of  his  Bible  commentaries, 
125;  originality  of,  126,  128;  as 
a  grammarian,  126-8;  and  the 
Spanish -Jewish  grammarians,  127; 
adept  in  Hebrew,  128-9;  and  the 
text  of  the  Bible,  129-30;  and  the 
canon,  130;  the  faith  of,  131; 
contrasted  with  Abraham  Ibn 
Ezra,  131-2;  various  recensions 
of  his  Talmudic  commentaries 
made  by,  135-6;  Talmud  com- 
mentators preceding,  136-8;  re- 
vision of  the  Talmud  text  by, 
138-9;  uses  Gershom's  auto- 
graph manuscript  of  the  Talmud, 
139,  140;  uses  texts  parallel  to 
the  Talmud,  139;  compared  with 
Hananel,  139-40;  uses  the  Re- 
sponsa  of  the  Geonim,  140,  143; 
Talmud  text  of,  accepted,  140; 
specimen  passages  from  the  Tal- 
mudic commentaries  of,  144-9, 
151-2,153-5;  historical  veracity  of, 


149-50;  lacks  historical  criticism, 
150-1;  method  of,  with  Haggadah 
and  Halakah,  152-3;  attitude  of, 
to  the  Halakah,  155-7;  authority 
of,  in  the  Halakah,  156-7;  Re- 
sponsa  by,  159,  160,  161,  161-2, 
163-4;  advocates  communal  and 
domestic  peace,  164-6;  religious 
and  legal  opinions  of,  166-7; 
style  of,  168;  the  disciples  of,  his 
collaborators,  169;  Responsa  by, 
collected  by  his  pupils,  170; 
works  composed  under  the  influ- 
ences of,  170;  number  of  liturgical 
poems  by,  173;  poems  by,  quoted 
and  analyzed,  174-9;  works  by, 
lost,  183;  fertility  of,  183;  in- 
fluence of,  183-4;  dominates  the 
rabbinical  movement  in  France 
and  Germany,  184;  relatives, 
connections,  and  descendants  of, 
187-93,  212-14,  227,  244,  n. 
11;  manuscripts  of,  used  by 
his  descendants,  187;  relation  of, 
to  the  Tossaflsts,  191-3;  the  in- 
fluence of,  on  Bible  exegesis,  196; 
and  Joseph  ben  Simon  Kara, 
197;  influence  of;  on  Nicnolas  de 
Lyra,  200;  influences  Luther,  201; 
extent  of  the  influence  of,  204-5; 
influence  of,  in  France,  205; 
influence  of,  in  Italy,  206;  in- 
fluence of,  in  Spain,  206-9,  211; 
Abraham  Ibn  Ezra  on,  206-7; 
the  commentaries  of,  not  pro- 
ductive of  original  works  in  the 
fifteenth  century,  211-12;  person- 
ality of,  steadily  popular,  212; 
mentioned  in  prayers,  212;  and 
the  discovery  of  printing,  214; 
number  of  editions  of  works  of, 
214;  authority  of,  increases,  214- 
15;  reason  for  the  popularity  of, 
215;  super-commentaries  on  the 
works  of,  216;  used  by  Chris- 
tians, 216-17;  the  works  of, 
burned,  217-18;  feeling  of  the 
Jews  toward,  218-19;  and  mod- 
ern Jewish  scholars,  219-20;  in- 
fluence of,  in  Bible  and  Talmud 
studies,  220-1;  eight  hundredth 
anniversary  of  the  death  of,  221; 
appreciation  of  222-24. 
See  also  Bible,  the;  Commentaries, 
the,  by  Rashi;  Commentary,  the 
Bible,  by  Rashi;  Commentary, 
the  Talmudic,  by  Rashi;  Com- 
mentary, the  Pentateuch,  by 
Rashi;  Responsa,  the,  by  Rashi; 
Talmud,  the. 

Rashi    Chair,    48. 

Rashi  Chapel,  48,  49. 

"  Rashi  script,"  246,  n.  32. 

Rebecca,  wife  of  Rashi,  44-3. 


INDEX 


275 


Reformation,  the,  and  Bible  studies, 
216. 

Reggio,  Rashi's  commentary  printed 
at,  214. 

Rejoicing  of  the  Law,  the,  Jewish 
children  begin  their  education 
on,  40. 

Renaissance  of  Jewish  learning,  219. 

Renaissance,  the,  and  Bible  studies, 
216. 

Responsa,  on  Troyes,  36;  by  Isaac 
ha-Levi,  58;  by  the  Geonim,  cited 
by  Rashi,  83;  definition  of,  159- 
60;  by  the  Geonim,  contain  some 
of  Rashi's,  170;  by  various 
authorities,  in  the  Sefer  ha- 
Pardes,  170;  by  disciples  of 
Rashi,  186;  by  Melr  ben  Samuel, 
188;  by  Jacob  Tarn,  190;  by 
Sherira,  248,  n.  44;  by  Hal,  248, 
n.  45;  by  Yehudal,  248,  n.  47; 
by  Nathan  ben  Jehiel,  253,  n.  98; 
by  Alfasi,  254,  n.  113;  by  David 
Ibn  Abi  Zimra,  255,  n.  120;  by 
Solomon  ben  Adret,  257,  n.  148; 
by  Asher  ben  Jehiel,  257,  n.  149. 

Responsa,  the,  by  Rashi,  give  infor- 
mation about  him,  73;  by  Rashi, 
quoted,  76-7,  79,  159,  160,  161, 
161-2,  163-4,  165-6,  245,  n.  21; 
varied  in  character,  160;  serve  a 
practical  purpose,  160-1;  indicate 
Rashi's  character  and  views, 
166-7;  style  of,  168;  collected  by 
his  disciples,  168,  170;  in  the 
Sefer  fto-Porde«,  170-1;  in  the 
Mahzor  Vitry,  171;  edited  by 
Shemaiah,  187;  character  of,  222. 

Rhone,  the,  early  settlement  of  Jews 
along,  18. 

Ribam.    See  Isaac  ben  Melr. 

Ribash.    See  Isaac  ben  Sheshet. 

Richard  I.,  of  England,  alluded  to, 
69,  189. 

Rif.    See  Isaac  Alfasi. 

Rifat,  name  for  Britain,  244,  n.  10. 

Ritual  murder  charges  in  France, 
202. 

Roland,  the  epic  of,  alluded  to,  102. 

Roll  of  Fasts,  how  known  to  Rashi, 
83. 

Rosh.    See  Asher  ben  Jehiel. 

Bosh  ha-8hanah  22a,  as  interpreted 
by  Rashi,  144-5. 

Rosh  Shibte  lehudah,  Rashi,  243,  n. 
0. 

Ruth,  the  Book  of,  Rashi  on,  130. 

Saadia,  contrasted  with  Rashi,  76; 
works  of,  not  known  to  Rashi, 
92;  exegesis  of,  109;  alluded  to, 
222. 

Sabbatal  ben  Joseph  Bass,  bibliogra- 
pher, super-commentary  on 
Rashi,  by,  215. 


Sabbatal  Donnolo,  and  Rashi,  82. 

Sabbatal  Sheftel,  on  Rashi,  218. 

Sabbath,  laazim  bearing  on  the  ob- 
servance of  the,  99. 

Sacrifice  of  Isaac,  the,  as  explained 
by  Rashi,  113-14. 

Safed.  alluded  to,  215. 

Si.  Jean  d'Acre,  alluded  to,  193. 

St.  Louis,  of  France,  and  the  Jews, 
202;  TRashi's  works  burned  under, 
217. 

Saladin,  sultan,  alluded  to,  69. 

Salomo  Gallicus,  name  under  which 
Rashi  was  known,  33. 

Solomon  ha-Zarfati,  name  under 
which  Rashi  was  known,  33. 

Samson  of  Sens,  Tossaflst,  193. 

Samson  Sir  of  Coucy,  Tossaflst,  194; 
brother-in-law  of,  194. 

Samuel,  Amora,  alluded  to,  253,  n. 
94. 

Samuel,  the  Book  of,  Rashi  convers- 
ant with  the  Midrash  on,  83; 
Joseph  Kara  on,  197. 

Samuel  ben  Jacob,  descendant  of 
Rashi,  213. 

Samuel  ben  Metr  (Rashbam),  grand- 
son of  Rashi,  on  Biblical  paral- 
lelism, 60;  son  of  Melr  ben 
Samuel,  62;  relation  of,  to 
Rashi,  80;  prolixity  of,  95;  com- 
pared with  Rashi  as  a  commen- 
tator, 97;  on  the  method  of  in- 
terpreting Scriptures,  121-2;  on 
Rashi's  Bible  commentary,  125; 
Bible  commentaries  by,  126,  215; 
on  laws  against  Gentiles,  161; 
directs  schools  at  Troyes  and  Ra- 
meru,  188;  disciples  of,  188-9, 
193,  197;  character  of,  189;  Bible 
exegesis  by,  196-7;  Midrash  oc- 
casionally used  by,  197;  sur- 
passed by  Joseph  ben  Simon 
Kara,  197. 

Samuel  ben  Nissim,  cites  Rashi,  205. 

Samuel  ben  Perigoros,  disciple  of 
Rashi,  186. 

Samuel  ben  Solomon  Sir  Morel  Tos- 
safist,  194;  at  the  disputation  of 
Paris,  195. 

Samuel  ben  Shneor,  Tossafist,  195. 

Samuel  Edels  (Maharsba),  explains 
Rashi's  Talmudic  commentary, 
216. 

Samuel  ha-Levi,  fellow-student  of 
Rashia,  62. 

Samuel  Ibn  Nagdela,  alluded  to, 
252,  n.  92. 

Samuel  of  Vitry,  son-in-law  of  Melr 
ben  /Samuel,  188. 

Sanhedrin,  Talmudical  treatise, 
used  by  Rashi  in  his  Bible  com- 
mentary, 114. 

Sanhedrin  92b,  aa  interpreted  by 
Rashi,  155. 


276 


INDEX 


e,  the,  early  settlement  of  Jews 
along,  18. 
Scholastic  literature,  alluded  to,  93. 
Schrader,  exegesis  of,  113. 
Seder  Olam,  the,  Rashi  conversant 
with,  83;  description  of,  248,  n. 
43. 

Sefarad,  name  for  Spain,  244,  n.  10. 
Sefer  ha-Orah  work  composed  un- 
der the  influence  of  Rashi,  170; 
published    by    Buber,    170,    221; 
elements  of,  171. 

Sefer  ha-Pardes,  work  composed 
under  the  influence  of  Rashi,  70, 
170,  256,  n.  129;  contents  of, 
170-1;  popularity  of,  171;  import- 
ance of,  172. 
Sefer  ha-Terumah,  by  Baruch  ben 

Isaac,   193. 

Sefer  ha-fashar,  by  Jacob  Tarn, 
inaugurates  the  Tossafot  litera- 
ture, 191. 

Sefer  Issur-we-Eeter,  work  com- 
posed   under    the    influence    of 
Rashi,  170. 
Sefer  Mizwot  Gadol,  by  Moses  ben 

Jacob,  194. 
Sefer  Mizwot  Katan,  by  Isaac  ben 

Joseph,  195. 
Sefer     Yerelm,    by     Eliezer    ben 

Samuel,  189. 
Sefer    fezirah,    Rashi    conversant 

with,  83. 
"  Segan  Leviya,"   surname  of  Isaac 

ben  Eleazar  ha-Levi,  244,  n.  18. 
Gelifyot,     penitential     poems,      by 

Rashi,  176. 

See  Liturgical  poems  by  Rashi. 
Semag.    See  Sefer  Mizwot  Gadol. 
Semak.    See  Sefer  Mizwot  Katan. 
Sens,  Toasafot  of,  195. 
Shabbat,  Talmudical  treatise,   laa- 

zim  bearing  on,    99. 
Sheeltot,  the,   cited  by  Rashi,   83; 

the  author  of,  248,  n.  46. 
Shelomo,   name  under  which   Rashi 

was  known,  33. 

Shemaiah,    disciple   of   Rashi,    addi- 
tions by,  to  the  Sefer  ha-Par- 
des,  171,  255,  n.  129. 
Sherira  bar   Hananiah,    Gaon,    cited 
by  Rashi,  83;  works  of,  248,  n. 
44. 
SMbbole    ha-Leket,    by    Zedekiah 

ben  Abraham  Anaw,  206. 
SMtta  Mekubeeet,  by  Bezalel  Ash- 

kenazi,   255,   n.   122. 
Bifra  (Torat  Kohanim),  the,   Rashi 
conversant  with,   83,  247,  n.  38. 
Sifre,    the,   Rashi   conversant  with, 

83,  247,  n.  38. 

Sigebert   de   Gemblours,   monk,   He- 
braist, 129. 

Simhah    ben     Samuel,     disciple     of 
Rashi,    author   of   the   Mafyzor 


Vitry,    172,    186;    grandson    of, 
192. 
Simon  Ashkenazi,   super-commentary 

of,  on  Rashi,  215. 
Simon   ben    Yohai,    redactor   of   the 

Sifre,  247,  n.  38. 

Simon    ben    Zemah    Duran,    Rashi's 
influence    on,    211;    data    about, 
257,  n.  151. 
Simon  Kara,   alleged   author   of  the 

Talkut  Shimeoni,  251,  n.  89. 
Simon  of  Joinville,  Tossafist,  194. 
Simon   the    Elder,    disciple   of    Ger- 
shom   ben    Judah,    29;    maternal 
uncle  of  Rashi,  37. 
Simon,    Richard,    exegete,     on    the 
birthplace    of    Rashi,     34;     uses 
Rashi's  work,  217. 
Sinzheim,   Loeb,    restores  the  school 

at  Worms,  48. 

Sir   Vives.    See  Jehial   ben  Joseph. 
Sirkes,  Joel.    See  Joel  Sirkes. 
Slaves,     manumission    of,    Talmudic 

passage  on,  148-9. 
Solomon,  name  of  Rashi,  33. 
Solomon    ben    Abba     Mari,     gram- 
marian, confused  with  Rashi,  34. 
Solomon   ben    Adret,    influenced   by 
Rashi,   209;   data  about,   257,   n. 
148. 
Solomon    ben    Isaac,    confused    with 

Rashi,   253,   n.   98. 
Solomon     ben     Melr,     grandson     of 

Rashi,  scholar,  62,   188. 
Solomon  ben  Samuel  Spira,   descen- 
dant of  Rashi,  213;  daughter  of, 
213. 
Solomon  ben  Simson,  fellow-student 

of  Rashi,  52. 

Solomon  Luria  (Maharshal),  Kabba- 
list  and  Talmudist,  on  the  litur- 
gical poems  by  Rashi,  173;  de- 
scended from  Rashi,  213,  258,  n. 
154;  on  Rashi's  commentary,  215, 
216. 

Solomon  of  Dreux,  Tossaflst,  194. 
Solomon    of    Lunel,    confused    with 

Rashi,  34. 
Solomon  of  Tours,   correspondent  of 

Rashi,  57. 
Solomon  Simhah,  casuist,  descendant 

of  Rashi,  213. 
Solomon     Yedidiah,     influenced    by 

Rashi,  206. 

Song  of  Songs,  the,  Rashi  conversant 
with   the  Midrash   on,    83;    alle- 
gorically    interpreted   by    Rashi, 
119;    Rashi   on,   130,   248,   n.   51. 
Song   of  the   Red  Sea,   the,   as  ex- 
plained by  Rashi,  114-16. 
Spain,  the  Jews  of,  compared  with 
those  of  France,  25;  exegesis  by 
the  Jews   of,    127;    the  scholars 
of,   make  use  of  Responsa,   160; 


INDEX 


277 


Rashi's  works  prohibited  in,  218; 

rabbinical  name  for,  244,  n.  10. 
Speyer,  beginning  of  Jewish  studies 

at,  27;  Rashi  said  to  have  studied 

at,  47;  the  Jews  of,  and  the  First 

Crusade,  66;   customs  of,  in  the 

Sefer  ha-Pardes,  171. 
Strack,    H.    L.,    on    Rashi's   Talmud 

commentary,  158. 
Student  life,   among  Jews,  45-6,   59- 

60. 
Sukkah     29b,     as     interpreted     by 

Rashi,  145-7. 
Superstitions,  of  the  Jews  of  France, 

23,  40. 
Sura,  Academy  of,  alluded  to,  54. 

Tabernacle,  the,  construction  of,  aa 
explained  by  Rashi,  117-18. 

Tahort,    alluded   to,    248,    n.    49. 

Talmud,  the,  honored  by  the  Jews  of 
France,  23-4,  25;  the  study  of,  in 
Lorraine,  26-7,  28,  29;  quoted, 
37,  55,  74,  112,  167;  place  of,  in 
Jewish  education,  42;  Rashi  con- 
versant with,  83;  and  scientific 
knowledge,  85;  variants  in,  86; 
Rashi  devoted  study  of,  90;  de- 
votion to  the  study  of,  121;  on 
the  Scriptural  canon,  130;  the 
text  of,  emended,  137-8;  Rashi's 
revision  of  the  text  of,  140; 
Weiss  on  the  study  of,  141; 
Rashi  on  the  composition  of, 
150;  practical  purpose  of  the 
study  of,  159;  laws  against  Gen- 
tiles, in,  161;  treatises  of,  in  the 
Mahzor  Vitry,  in;  the  study 
of,  by  the  Tossaflsts,  191;  de- 
nounced by  Nicholas  Donni, 
202;  burnt,  202;  the  Babylonian, 
accompanied  by  Rashi's  com- 
mentaries, 214;  term  explained, 
252,  n.  94. 

Talmud  school,  in  Champagne,  53-4; 
at  Troyea,  57;  of  Rashi,  69-60. 

Talmud  schools,  in  Ile-de-France  and 
Normandy,  194. 

Talmud  schools,  the,  in  France,  de- 
cay, 201-2. 

Tarn.    See  Jacob   ben  Melr. 

Tanliuma,  the  Midrash,  Rashi  con- 
versant with,  83,  247,  n.  41;  used 
by  Rashi  in  his  Bible  commen- 
tary, 114. 

Tannaim,  the,  the  generations  of, 
distinguished  by  Rashi,  150;  term 
explained,  253,  n.  94. 

Targum,  Aramaic  translation  of  the 
Bible,  83,  105;  quoted  by  Rashi, 
115;  and  Rashi's  commentaries, 
215. 

Taxes,  the  payment  of,  Responsa  by 
Rashi  on,  159. 


Things  Prohibited  and  Things  Per- 
mitted, Book  of.  See  Sefer 
Issur-we-Heter. 

Torah.    Bee  Pentateuch. 

Torat  Kohanim.    See  Bifra. 

Tosefta,  the,  a  text  parallel  to  the 
Talmud,  Rashi  conversant  with, 
83,  139,  143;  contents  of,  246,  n. 
37. 

Tossaflsts,  the,  disciples  of  Rashi,  on 
variations  in  passages  of  Rashi's 
Talmudic  commentaries,  136; 
extremists,  142;  ingenuity  of, 
191;  deduce  the  norm,  191;  com- 
mentators of  Rashi,  192;  early 
disciples  of  Rashi,  192-3;  later, 
194-6;  and  the  study  of  the 
Bible,  198-9;  the  study  of,  re- 
newed, 213. 
See  also  Tossafot,  the. 

Tossafot,  the,  origin  of,  185;  de- 
fined, 191;  compared  with 
Rashi's  commentaries,  191-2; 
foundations  of,  established,  193; 
accompanies  the  Babylonian  Tal- 
mud, 214. 
See  also  Tossaflsts,  the. 

"  Tossafot  of  Evreux,"  edited  by 
Moses  ben  Shneor,  195. 

Tossafot  of  Sens,  edited  by  Eliezar  of 
Touquea,  195. 

Tossafot  to  the  Bible,  198-9. 

Touraine,  early  settlement  of  Jews 
in,  18. 

Trade  between  Jews  and  Christians, 
Responsa  on,  161-2. 

Translations  of  the  Bible,  83,  105. 

Treves,  the  family  of,  connected 
with  Rashi,  258,  n.  154. 

Treves,  the  Jews  of,  and  the  First 
Crusade,  66. 

Troyes,  fairs  held  at,  85;  descrip- 
tion of,  35;  Jewish  community 
of,  36;  Responsa  on,  36;  import- 
ance of,  54;  Rashi  connected 
with,  54-6;  wine-presses  at,  56; 
Talmud  school  at,  57;  centre 
of  Jewish  studies,  186;  Vespasian, 
alluded  to,  243,  n.  2. 

Vineyards,  owned  by  Jews,  20. 
Viticulture,  occupation  of  Jews,  36; 

occupation  of  Rashi,  56. 
Vitry,  alluded  to,  244,  n.  18. 
Vratislav,    Duke    of    Bohemia,    and 

Rashi,  44. 
Vulgate,  the,  and  the  Hebrew  Bible, 

216. 

Weiss,  I.  H.,  scholar,  on  Rashi,  82, 
220,  221;  on  the  study  of  the 
Talmud,  141;  data  about,  258,  n. 
160. 

William  of  Mara,  calk  Rashi'*  com- 
mentary Perui,  201. 


278 


INDEX 


William  of  the  White  Hands,  scholar, 
alluded  to,  54. 

William  the  Conqueror,  alluded  to, 
244,  n.  16. 

Wine,  Christian,  Responsa  by  Rashl 
on,  159,  161. 

Wisdom,  the,  of  Ben  Sira,  how 
known  to  Rashi,  83. 

Wogue,  L.,  on  two  methods  of  in- 
terpreting Scripture,  106-8;  on 
Rashi's  influence,  185,  256,  n. 
131;  on  Elijah  ben  Abraham  Mia- 
rahi,  211;  on  Rashi's  influence 
among  the  Jews,  218,  258,  n. 
157. 

Women,  Jewish,  the  education  of, 
61-2. 

Worms,  beginning  of  Jewish  studies 
at,  27;  rabbis  at,  29;  claims 
Rashi  as  rabbi,  32;  legendary  ac- 
count of  Rashi's  birth  at,  39; 
Rashi's  sojourn  at,  45-6;  the 
synagogue  at,  47;  chapel  at, 
called  by  Rashi's  name,  48; 
Rashi  Chair  at,  48;  the  Jews 
of,  and  the  First  Crusade,  66; 
customs  of,  in  the  Sefer  Jia- 
Pardes,  171. 

Yakar  ben  Machir,  fellow-student  of 

Rashi,  52. 
TalJcut  Sliimeoni,  the,  alluded  to, 

124;    alleged   author   of,   251,   n. 

89. 
Yarhi,  name  given  to  Rashi,  33,  243, 

n.  10. 
Yashar,  Rashi,  243,  n.  9. 


Yehudal,  Gaon,  cited  by  Rashi,  83; 
data  about,  248,  n.  47. 

Yelamdenu,  Midrash,  alluded  to,  247, 
n.  41. 

Tesod,  Rashi  calls  Moses  ha-Dar- 
shan's  commentary,  110;  Rashi 
calls  the  writings  of  his  masters, 
137. 

Yomtob  ben  Judah,  grandson  of 
Rashi,  Talmudist,  187. 

Yomtob  de  Joigny,  poet  and  com- 
mentator, 189. 

Tosippon,  chronicle,  attributed  to 
Josephus,  84. 

Yosselmann  of  Rosheim,  descended 
from  Rashi,  213. 

Zarfat,  name  for  France,  244,  n.  10. 

Zechariah,  the  Book,  of,  Rashi  on, 
248,  n.  51. 

Zedah  la-Derelf,  by  Menahem  ben 
Zerah,  255,  n.  123.. 

Zedekiah  ben  Abraham  Anaw,  in- 
fluenced by  Rashi,  206. 

Zerahiah  ha-Levi,  supposed  teacher 
of  Rashi,  43;  cites  Rashi,  205. 

Zohar,  the,  and  Rashi,  208. 

Zunz,  Leopold,  quoted,  18;  essay  on 
Rashi  by,  32,  220;  on  the 
laazim,  100;  on  the  liturgical 
poems  by  Rashi,  173,  179;  on  the 
relatives  of  Rashi,  187;  on  the 
editions  of  Rashi's  works,  214; 
on  Rashi's  daughter,  245,  n.  22; 
reconstructs  the  Pesikta,  247,  n. 
40. 


t  JSorfc  (gafftmore 

THE  FRIEDENWALD   COUP  ANT 
BALTIMORE,    MD.,    U.    8.    A. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE 

JEWISH    HISTORICAL   SOCIETY 
OF   ENGLAND 


CALENDAR  OF  THE  PLEA  ROLLS  OF  THE 
EXCHEQUER  OF  THE  JEWS,  PRESERVED  IN 
THE  PUBLIC  RECORD  OFFICE. 

VOL.  I.  HENRY  III.,  A.D.  1218-1272.  Edited  by  J.  M.  RIGG, 
of  Lincoln's  Inn,  Barrister-at-Law.  Super  royal  8vo,  i6s. 

JEWS  IN  MANY  LANDS. 

By  ELKAN  NATHAN  ADLER.  Illustrated.  Extra  crown  8vo, 
55.  net. 

Second  Impression  now  Ready. 

SONGS  OF  EXILE  BY  HEBREW  POETS. 

Translated  by  NINA  DAVIS  (Mrs.  R.  N.  Salaman).  Royal  i6mo, 
2s.  6d.  net. 

A  BOOK  OF  ESSAYS. 

By  S.  A.  HIRSCH,  Ph.D.,  Joint-Editor  of  the  Greek  Grammar  of 
Roger  Bacon  and  a  Fragment  of  his  Hebrew  Grammar.  Extra 
crown  8vo,  73.  6d.  net. 

JEWISH  HISTORY. 

An  Essay  in  the  Philosophy  of  History.  By  S.  M.  DUBNOW. 
From  the  Authorised  German  Translation.  Globe  8vo,  2s.  6d.  net. 

JEWISH  WORTHIES  SERIES.     VOL.  I. 

MAIMONIDES. 

By  DAVID  YELLIN  and  ISRAEL  ABRAHAMS.  Illustrated.  Globe 
8vo,  gilt  top,  2s.  6d.  net. 

JEWISH  WORTHIES  SERIES.     VOL.  II. 

RASHI. 

By  MAURICE  LIBER.     Illustrated.     Gilt  top. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE 

JEWISH    HISTORICAL    SOCIETY    OF 

ENGLAND—  Continued. 

THE  LETTER  OF  ARISTEAS. 

Translated  into  English,  with  an  Introduction  and  Notes,  by 
H.  ST.  J.  THACKERAY,  M.A.  Reprinted  from  the  Jewish 
Quarterly  Review,  and  published  for  the  Jewish  Historical  Society 
of  England.  8vo,  sewed,  is. 

MENASSEH      BEN      ISRAEL'S      MISSION      TO 
OLIVER  CROMWELL. 

Being  a  reprint  of  the  Pamphlets  published  by  Menasseh  Ben 
Israel  to  promote  the  Readmission  of  the  Jews  to  England,  1649- 
1656.  Edited,  with  an  Introduction  and  Notes,  by  LUCIEN  . 
WOLF,  Past-President  and  Vice- President  of  the  Jewish  Historical 
Society  of  England.  With  Portraits.  Super  royal  8vo,  2 is.  net. 

THE  ETHICS  OF  JUDAISM. 

By  M.  LAZARUS,  Ph.D.  Translated  from  the  German  by  HENRI- 
ETTA SZOLD.  Part  I.  Crown  8vo,  35.  6d.  net.  Part  II.  Crown 
8vo,  35.  6d.  net. 

THE  JEWISH   HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  OF  ENG- 
LAND TRANSACTIONS. 

VOLUME  IV.  Sessions  1899-1901.  Super  royal  8vo,  stiff 
boards,  i6s. 

MACMILLAN   &  CO.,  Limited,  LONDON. 


THE  JEWISH  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  OF  ENG- 
LAND TRANSACTIONS. 

VOLUMES  I.-III.  Published  for  the  Society  by  FRANK  HAES. 
(Apply  to  the  Hon.  Sec.,  the  Rev.  S.  LEVY,  M.A.,  Synagogue 
Chambers,  Great  St.  Helen's,  London,  E.G.) 

SELECT  PLEAS,  STARRS,  AND  OTHER 
RECORDS  FROM  THE  ROLLS  OF  THE  EX= 
CHEQUER  OF  THE  JEWS,  A.D.  1220-1280. 

Edited  by  J.  M.  RIGG.     (B.  QUARITCH.     Price  £i,  us.  6d.) 


Souvenir  Booklet  of  the  Whitehall  Conference  Celebration  Dinner 
Is.  net.    Copies  may  be  obtained  from  tbe  Honorary  Secretary. 


A     000  049  661     2 


